Presuppositional apologetics

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 3: Line 3:
 
There are generally two branches of presuppositional apologetics: Van Tillian presuppositionalism and Clarkian presuppositionalism, attributed to their namesakes, Cornelius Van Til and Gordon Clark.
 
There are generally two branches of presuppositional apologetics: Van Tillian presuppositionalism and Clarkian presuppositionalism, attributed to their namesakes, Cornelius Van Til and Gordon Clark.
  
==Critique form Un-Falsifiability==
+
==Basic Forms and Principles==
 +
===Van Tillian Presuppositionalism===
 +
Van Tillian presuppositionalists accept that the Bible is the arbiter of truth and error, and that all knowledge claims must be given Biblical justification. They cannot be known independently of the Bible. They often grant that certain statements generally accepted as "foundational" are true, they refuse the condition that such statements are "foundational". The only foundational presupposition is the truth of the Bible.
 +
 
 +
:'''Skeptic''': Is ''modus ponens'' the case?
 +
:'''VT Apologist''': Of course ''modus ponens'' is the case. It is one of the most important rules of logic.
 +
:'''Skeptic''': But isn't modus ponens, given its standing as a rule of logic, foundational?
 +
:'''VT Apologist''': No. Only the Bible is foundational. ''Modus ponens'' can be used to check the coherence of other propositions with the truth of the Bible.
 +
 
 +
Van Tillian presuppositionalism also hinges on a distinction between ''proof'' and ''persuasion'' where there can be conclusive proofs of the existence of God that are not persuasive, because the skeptic rejects the epistemological framework necessary to those proofs.
 +
 
 +
===Clarkian Presuppositionalism===
 +
Clark treated the truth of the Bible as the axiom of a logical system. Clarkian presuppositionalism then asserts that the worldview that results from the acceptance of the axiom can be tested for consistency and comprehensiveness.
 +
 
 +
==Critiques==
 +
===Critique form Un-Falsifiability===
  
 
One critique of presuppositional apologetics is that it is committed to the claim "God exists" being true; however, because it asserts that the existence of God is necessary for any belief to be intelligible, it is not possible to falsify the claim. The exchange looks something like this:
 
One critique of presuppositional apologetics is that it is committed to the claim "God exists" being true; however, because it asserts that the existence of God is necessary for any belief to be intelligible, it is not possible to falsify the claim. The exchange looks something like this:
Line 12: Line 27:
 
The move is a reversion to the belief being primitive. The concern is greater, though, when it comes to the belief about the truth of the Bible.
 
The move is a reversion to the belief being primitive. The concern is greater, though, when it comes to the belief about the truth of the Bible.
  
==Critique from Modal Logic==
+
===Critique from Modal Logic===
  
 
One critique of presuppositional apologetics is that it makes an existential claim (i.e. 'God exist') primitive. It is generally accepted, in logic, that only universal claims (like tautologies) can be primitive.
 
One critique of presuppositional apologetics is that it makes an existential claim (i.e. 'God exist') primitive. It is generally accepted, in logic, that only universal claims (like tautologies) can be primitive.

Revision as of 00:53, 9 September 2011

Presuppositional apologetics is a form of Christian apologetics, largely Calvinist that asserts that the acceptance of the proposition "God exists" and the truth of the Christian Bible is necessary for making the world intelligible. Presuppositional apologetics usually hinges on the rejection of Thomist apologetics, which attempt to establish logical proofs for the existence of god. The Transcendental Argument for the existence of God (TAG) is often considered a claim of presuppositional apologetics.

There are generally two branches of presuppositional apologetics: Van Tillian presuppositionalism and Clarkian presuppositionalism, attributed to their namesakes, Cornelius Van Til and Gordon Clark.

Contents

Basic Forms and Principles

Van Tillian Presuppositionalism

Van Tillian presuppositionalists accept that the Bible is the arbiter of truth and error, and that all knowledge claims must be given Biblical justification. They cannot be known independently of the Bible. They often grant that certain statements generally accepted as "foundational" are true, they refuse the condition that such statements are "foundational". The only foundational presupposition is the truth of the Bible.

Skeptic: Is modus ponens the case?
VT Apologist: Of course modus ponens is the case. It is one of the most important rules of logic.
Skeptic: But isn't modus ponens, given its standing as a rule of logic, foundational?
VT Apologist: No. Only the Bible is foundational. Modus ponens can be used to check the coherence of other propositions with the truth of the Bible.

Van Tillian presuppositionalism also hinges on a distinction between proof and persuasion where there can be conclusive proofs of the existence of God that are not persuasive, because the skeptic rejects the epistemological framework necessary to those proofs.

Clarkian Presuppositionalism

Clark treated the truth of the Bible as the axiom of a logical system. Clarkian presuppositionalism then asserts that the worldview that results from the acceptance of the axiom can be tested for consistency and comprehensiveness.

Critiques

Critique form Un-Falsifiability

One critique of presuppositional apologetics is that it is committed to the claim "God exists" being true; however, because it asserts that the existence of God is necessary for any belief to be intelligible, it is not possible to falsify the claim. The exchange looks something like this:

Skeptic: What would have to be the case for you to reject the belief that God exist?
Apologist: There isn't anything, because my ability to know anything is conditioned on God existing in the first place. If there were conditions such that God didn't exist, then I wouldn't be able to comprehend God existing, or not existing, or any belief.

The move is a reversion to the belief being primitive. The concern is greater, though, when it comes to the belief about the truth of the Bible.

Critique from Modal Logic

One critique of presuppositional apologetics is that it makes an existential claim (i.e. 'God exist') primitive. It is generally accepted, in logic, that only universal claims (like tautologies) can be primitive.

In modal logic, existential claims about logical possibilities (like 'God exists') are generally believed to be true in at least one possible world and false in some other possible world. Because they are generally accepted as being false in some possible world, they are not considered necessary truths. Only necessary truths can be primitive.

List of Presuppositional Theologians

Cornelius Van Til - Gordon Clark - Greg Bahnsen - John Frame - Rousas John Rushdoony - Francis Schaeffer - Douglas Wilson

Personal tools
Namespaces
Variants
Actions
wiki navigation
IronChariots.Org
Toolbox