Christocentric Philosophy

In the introductory  post to this series, we noted that the justification of the Van Tillian argument from logic can generally be categorized into: (a) the ontology of logic, (b) the epistemology of logic, (c)the ethics of logic, and (d) the relation of logic to fact. In this post, we will be examining the ontology of logic. The justification in this case is that logic presupposes Christianity because the non-Christian systems of thought cannot, metaphysically speaking, account for logic. We find this line of reasoning in Bahnsen’s debate with Dr. Stein: The transcendental argument for the existence of God, then, which Dr. Stein has yet to touch, and which I don't believe he can surmount, is that without the existence of God it is impossible to prove anything. And that's because in the atheistic world you cannot justify, you cannot account for , laws in general: the laws of thought in particular , laws of nature, cannot account for human life, from the fact that it's more...

In the introductory post of this series, I mentioned that I would be attempting to provide clarity to the ideas behind the Van Tillian argument from logic. One thing that definitely needs clarification before we examine the nuances behind the actual argument is what exactly is meant by the term “logic”.  The term “logic” is susceptible to a host of varying definitions and interpretations. Often times, both parties have different things in mind when thinking about logic in the context of the argument. This often leads to both sides talking past each other. What exactly does the Van Tillian means when he uses the term logic? Laws of Logic  In most cases, the covenantal apologist had the three classical laws of logic in mind when he uses the term logic in his argument. Logic, then, is simply meant to be a shorthand term for laws of logic. The three classical laws of logic include: (1) the law of identity, (2) the law of non-contradiction, and (3) the law of excluded middle. Thes...

In this series of posts, I will be discussing a very popular claim made by proponents of the Van Tillian school of covenantal apologetics - the claim that logic somehow presupposes Christian Theism. The claim is undeniably a very strong one. This claim about logic is meant to be a subset of similar claims and arguments in the Van Tillian transcendental programme. Simply put, Van Tillians propose a transcendental argument for Christian Theism, arguing that, taken as a unit, it uniquely provides the necessary preconditions for intelligible human experience and thought. The aforementioned claim about logic, then, is part of a family of arguments with the argument from logic being just one instance of such arguments. The immediate question that comes to mind is how one demonstrates or justifies this claim that logic presupposes Christianity. It has been claimed by many critics of the Van Tillian school that a proper argumentative support for this claim is never presented. It is unfortunate...

In this post I will be responding to an article posted  here . The author attempts to explicate how a Christian evidentialist should understand the claim that Scripture should be our highest authority. The author begins by noting: Many Christians believe that it is wrong to offer unbelievers evidence for the truth of Christianity. [1]  They argue that the traditional method of apologetics dishonors Scripture by not giving it the respect it is due. The concern is that offering evidence for the truth of Scripture gives evidence more weight than Scripture. He then proceeds to offer the following argument: The argument might be framed this way: If some activity requires us to treat something as a higher authority than Scripture, as Christians, we should not do it. Giving evidence for the truth of Scripture requires us to treat evidence as a higher authority than Scripture. Therefore, as Christians, we should not give evidence for the truth of Scripture. In the relevant footnote, ...

It is undeniable that diversity is an integral part of our experience. The world we experience is marked by plurality and diversity. From a temporal standpoint, we begin with a diversity of things. There is a diversity of facts, events, mental states, objects, perceptions, beliefs, concepts, persons, etc etc. It is safe to say that our experience, in order to be what it is, must contain diversity. The question arises as to what can provide unity in our experience. As it turns out, if our experience consisted only of pure diversity, it would be unintelligible. In order to make sense of the world of experience, we must be able to find unity in the midst of the diversity. The human mind cannot but think in terms of unifying principles. Our minds are wired to order, organize, and categorize the different things we experience. If pure diversity were the case, we would be incapable of identification, predication, counting, using logic, applying moral principles, and so on. All these practice...

One of the most foundational claims of the Van Tillian school of presuppositional apologetics is that the Christian worldview is the necessary precondition for the intelligibility of human experience. This means that the set of presuppositions that make up the Christian view of reality, knowledge, ethics, man, God, etc. are necessary for human experience to make sense. The claim is that we cannot make sense of the world, or know anything about it, without presupposing, at least implicitly, the Christian worldview. This is the so-called Transcendental Argument for God (TAG). This is a bold claim to say the least, and it has definitely not gone uncriticized. One of such criticisms concerns the mere sufficiency of the Christian worldview. Another such criticism is concerning the possibility of a uniqueness proof for the Christian worldview. These objections are not unique to TAG, though. They have their roots in the much broader list of objections raised against transcendental arguments i...

In Part 1 , we pointed out that the non Christian rejects the revelational starting point of Christianity and instead starts with the self in building an epistemology. We also noted that such a starting point is problematic, specifically making reference to the problem of connection. In this part, we'd be further exploring another problem for any epistemology that starts with the subject. People do make mistakes in their examination and interpretation of certain facts. Sometimes, such mistakes are due to ignorance - ignorance of some relevant body of facts or information that would help interpret a certain fact correctly. It is also true that sometimes people believe something so strongly but some new fact comes along and overturns that belief. If we're going to posit the self as the starting point in epistemology as the non Christian does, then we have a problem. Without exhaustive knowledge of all facts and their relation to each other, how can we know that there isn't s...