Presuppositional Apologetics Problem?

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Michael V. Frazier on January 25, 2011 at 10:45pm

Dustin, is it just me, or is there a ton of garbage characters in Michael Butler's essay?

This is a sample of what I see:

Cornelius Van Til revolutionized Christian apologetics in the twentieth century.� His system of the defense of the faith rejected the common practice among Christian apologists of assuming a neutral, autonomous point of view when confronting unbelief.� In its place he urged a presuppositional, theonomic approach of establishing the truth of Christian theism.�

Dustin Crider said:

Michael Butler deals with this in his essay here: http://butler-harris.org/tag/.  See especially sections IIB and IV.

Permalink Reply by Justin Mooney on January 26, 2011 at 3:01pm

Yes, I have read the relevant parts of the essay, but I noticed that after he claims that the all un-Christian worldviews have things in common that make them all able to be categorized and refuted together as "The non-Christian worldview," he goes on to address worldviews that actually don't fit the category he has outlined. He describes this possibility: 

 

"We are not quite out of the woods yet, however.� As we saw earlier, the critic of TAG offers a special version of this objection.� Objection (3) contends that there is another (conceivable) worldview that does provide sufficient preconditions for experience and thereby cuts off the proof that the Christian worldview is necessary precondition of experience.� This worldview is in many ways identical to Christianity except that it contradicts it a one or more points.� The example mentioned above was Fristianity.� Fristianity is said to be identical to Christianity except for the fact that instead of a Trinity it has a quadrinity.� With regard to this objection, the recent literature on TAs is of little help."

 

Then he refutes "Fristianity", but then describes another possibility:

 

"At this point the proponent of object (3) may attempt one last desperate stand.� He can argue that we can take Christianity at it stands and, rather than replace one of its doctrines with another, simply remove some distinguishing feature.� For example, rather than positing something as problematic as a quadrinity, the objector may simply invent a religion identical to Christianity except, say, that the book of Jude was never written and thus has no place in its canon."

 

Then he refutes this view as well. But it seems like we are back to refuting, one by one, all possible worldviews that are opposed to Christianity in order prove the case (the difference is simply that the unbelieving worldviews have been clumped into larger categories). Do we not still face the problem of proving a universal negative, namely that no non-christian worldview (or non-christian type of worldview, or form of non-christian worldview) can successfully provide the preconditions of intelligibility? 

 

I'm sorry if I'm frustrating you, but this is a problem that I've been struggling with for a while, and I'm trying to be very careful about successfully solving it. 

 

Permalink Reply by Dustin Crider on January 26, 2011 at 9:15pm

Yes, I see them as well.  

Michael V. Frazier said:

Dustin, is it just me, or is there a ton of garbage characters in Michael Butler's essay?

This is a sample of what I see:

Cornelius Van Til revolutionized Christian apologetics in the twentieth century.� His system of the defense of the faith rejected the common practice among Christian apologists of assuming a neutral, autonomous point of view when confronting unbelief.� In its place he urged a presuppositional, theonomic approach of establishing the truth of Christian theism.�

Dustin Crider said:

Michael Butler deals with this in his essay here: http://butler-harris.org/tag/.  See especially sections IIB and IV.

Permalink Reply by Michael V. Frazier on January 26, 2011 at 10:10pm

It's no frustration for me, Justin.  I've rather enjoyed the discussion.  It's enlightening for me to see other peoples' perspectives and hear their questions, and good practice (I suppose) to try and answer them as best as possible.  I do understand the apparent difficulty, but I am curious as to know from which perspective your are having the difficulty.  Is this a personal question, or are you just looking at it critically trying to assuage how a non-believer might question the argument?

Justin Mooney said:

I'm sorry if I'm frustrating you, but this is a problem that I've been struggling with for a while, and I'm trying to be very careful about successfully solving it.

 

Permalink Reply by Justin Mooney on January 26, 2011 at 10:46pm

"Is this a personal question, or are you just looking at it critically trying to assuage how a non-believer might question the argument?"

 

The latter. I guess I am trying to close all the loopholes. Personally I have no problem accepting the presuppositionalist approach to apologetics (in fact, in terms of Biblical authority I see no reasonable alternative), but I do have questions about it that I struggle with still. 

Michael V. Frazier said:

It's no frustration for me, Justin.  I've rather enjoyed the discussion.  It's enlightening for me to see other peoples' perspectives and hear their questions, and good practice (I suppose) to try and answer them as best as possible.  I do understand the apparent difficulty, but I am curious as to know from which perspective your are having the difficulty.  Is this a personal question, or are you just looking at it critically trying to assuage how a non-believer might question the argument?

Justin Mooney said:

I'm sorry if I'm frustrating you, but this is a problem that I've been struggling with for a while, and I'm trying to be very careful about successfully solving it.

 

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page