 |
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||||
Presuppositional apologetics is a school of Christian apologetics, the field of study concerned with the systematic defense of a position. Presuppositional apologetics holds that the Christian apologist must assume from the beginning (a priori) the truth of the supernatural revelation contained in the Bible because there can be no set of assumptions from which to reason neutrally with someone that does not believe in the bible. In other words, the Christian cannot consistently hold his belief in the necessary existence God of the Bible and simultaneously argue on the basis of a different set of assumptions (presumably those of the non-Christian) in which God may not exist.
By contrast, the other schools of Christian apologetics (Thomistic and Evidentialist) assume the world is intelligible apart from God and argue exclusively on purportedly neutral grounds to support trusting God?s revelation. Specifically, Thomistic (also "Traditional" or "Classical") apologetics concentrates on logical proofs for the existence of God, while Evidentialist apologetics is interested in various evidences that support the probable existence of God and the truth of the Bible.
Presuppositional apologetics developed in and is most commonly advocated within Reformed circles of Christianity.
There are at least two systems of apologetics that commonly are called presuppositional. The first -- and by far the most widely followed -- was developed by Cornelius Van Til and his students, especially John Frame and Greg Bahnsen. The second was developed by Gordon Clark and is carried on by his disciple John W. Robbins.
Apologists who follow Van Til earned the label "presuppositional" because of their central tenet that the Christian must at all times presuppose (i.e. assume in advance) the supernatural revelation of the Bible as the ultimate arbiter of truth and error in order to know anything. Christians, they say, can assume nothing less because all meaning and coherence depends on the existence of the God of the Bible, and by accepting the assumptions of non-Christians, which deny the Trinitarian God of the Bible, one could not even formulate an intelligible argument.
Van Tillians will often utilize arguments based on the same beliefs as the Thomistic and Evidentialist arguments (e.g., belief in the uniformity of natural causes) within their presuppositionalist framework, but they are unwilling to grant that such beliefs are justifiable on "natural" (neutral) grounds. Rather, Van Tillians employ these beliefs in the service of transcendental arguments, which are a sort of meta-argument about foundational principles in which the non-Christian's worldview is shown to be incoherent in and of itself and intelligible only because it borrows capital from the Christian worldview. Van Til once summarized the transcendental method thus: "(T)he only proof for the existence of God is that without God you couldn't prove anything." An example of this form of argument is found in the transcendental argument for the existence of God.
Van Tillians also stress the importance of reckoning with the noetic effects of sin, which corrupts man's ability to understand God, the world, and himself aright. Man, as a fallen creature, does know the truth in each of these areas, but he seeks to find a different interpretation -- one in which, as C. S. Lewis said, he is "on the bench" and God is "in the dock." The apologist must simply confront the unbeliever with the fact that, while he is verbally denying the truth, he is nonetheless practically behaving in accord with it. (Van Til illustrated this concept as a child, elevated on the father's knee, reaching up to slap his face, and Bahnsen used the analogy of a man breathing out air to make the argument that air doesn't exist.)
Another important distinctive of the Van Tillian apologetical program is the delineation of proof and persuasion. Van Tillians claim to be providing arguments that constitute proof of the existence of God, regardless of whether or not anyone is persuaded by them. In the words of Van Til, it is reasonable for the unbeliever to believe in God, even though it may not be reasonable to him. Frame puts it this way:
"The very nature of an ultimate presupposition is that it is held with certainty. An ultimate presupposition is an ultimate criterion of truth, and therefore it is a criterion by which all other alleged certainties are tested. There is no higher criterion by which the certainty of such a presupposition can be called into question. Thus by its very nature, such a presupposition is the most certain thing that we know. And the certainty that belongs to presuppositions also belongs to their implications and applications.... We do not, however, always feel certain.... Certainty, therefore, considered as a psychological state, rises and falls for various reasons. Christians, however, have a right to be certain.... But does that emphasis on certainty mean that there is no role for probability in theology? I think that there is such a role.... Butler was right when he said that many of our decisions in life are based on probability rather than absolute certainty. And it is also true, as he said, that we have a moral obligation, when we do not have absolute certainty, to accept the most probable possibility.... Where Butler went wrong was in saying that our belief in Jesus Christ for salvation is only a matter of probability and that that probability can be ascertained through 'neutral' rational methods, apart from the presupposition of Scripture."
Clark and his followers treat the truth of the Scriptures as an axiom of their system, which cannot be proven or disproven. Rather it, like all axioms, must be tested for consistency within the worldview. This test for internal contradiction exemplifies Clark's strict reliance on the laws of logic (He famously translates the first verse of the Gospel of John as "In the beginning was the Logic, and the Logic was with God, and the Logic was God." By contrast, some Van Tillians have suggested that God might be "above the laws of logic" in some sense.). Thus, in order to invalidate non-Christian worldviews, one must simply show how a different presupposition results in necessary logical contradictions.
Clark admitted, however, that there could be more than one apparently coherent worldview and that one could not test all the implications of any worldview without omniscience. Nonetheless, he believed that this method was effective in many practical cases (e.g. for secular humanism, dialectical materialism, etc.) and that, in the end, each of us must simply choose (i.e., make an informed selection) from among seemingly consistent worldviews the one that most adequately answers life's questions and seems the most internally coherent. (Some Van Tillian critics suggest that the concept of coherence itself must be defined in terms of Christian presuppositions but is instead being used by Clark as a neutral principle for discerning the truth of any proposition.)
Using this approach, Clark labored to expose the contradictions of many worldviews that were in vogue in his day and to defend the Christian worldview by proving its consistency over against those who attacked it. His unflagging use of logic sometimes led him to what most Reformed theologians consider rather unorthodox ideas on such topics as the problem of evil -- topics which are most often treated by theologians as paradoxes or apparent contradictions not resolvable by human logic.
With regard to other schools of apologetics, Clark suggested that the cosmological argument was not just unpersuasive but also logically invalid (because it begged the question), and he similarly dismissed the other Thomistic arguments. As a staunch critic of empiricism, he did not tend to make much use of evidential arguments, which yield likelihoods and probabilities rather than logical certainties (viz. coherence or incoherence).
The obvious criticism of presuppositionalism is that it uses circular reasoning, which (in some forms) is considered a logical fallacy. Neither Van Tillians or Clarkians deny this charge. Rather, they insist that all worldviews are ultimately circular and cannot justify their foundational principle except by that principle itself. Therefore, while presuppositionalists agree that circularity makes for an invalid argument in some circumstances, in the case of ultimate presuppositions, there is no other option. So when considering worldviews, the concern must not be for vicious (or "small") circularity, but for internal coherence (i.e., "large circularity"). In other words, the question to be asked is not, "Do I begin with my ultimate presupposition?" but rather, "Do my beliefs and practices comport with my ultimate presupposition?"
If this reasoning is true, however, it means that all argumentation is ultimately circular, which may make one question the value of any argument whatsoever. Presuppositionalists insist that this circularity does not mean that the apologetical endeavor is reduced to a philosophical "standoff," where one simply chooses his presuppositions by a voluntary act and then uncritically holds on to them despite all argument to the contrary (in other words, Fideism). Rather, they posit that there is a logical necessity that attaches to a certain set of presuppositions (the ultimate of which being the existence of the God revealed in the Bible) and that one simply cannot reject that set of presuppositions without destroying the very foundations of knowledge, science, and ethics. That is to say, presuppositionalists argue that without the Christian-Theistic circle, human experience would be unintelligible, and the very objection to "circular reasoning" would be nothing more than a random, disconnected, and ultimately meaningless utterance, not in principle different from any other utterance. Like the man in Bahnsen's analogy, breathing out air to make the argument against the existence of air, by raising the "circular reasoning" objection, the unbeliever is thereby demonstrating the truth of Christian-Theism.
It should not be thought, however, that all presuppositionalists thus repudiate empirical or rational evidences in favor of this heavily philosophical argumentation about circularity. Van Tillians in particular utilize evidence from many other disciplines (e.g., physical sciences, archeology, philosophy, etc.), as understood according to the Christian presuppositions, to argue in "broader circles," seeking to demonstrate that all the universe (including the human mind), when understood correctly, plainly declares the wonders of the Creator.
Books
Websites
Debates utilizing a presuppositional approach
Debates and discussions on apologetic method
|
||||
| View Live Article | This article is from Wikipedia. All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License | |
||
