Ben said: "By "etc." I refer to principally basic entities, such as the existence of an objective, rational, external world, the reliability of the senses, the aforementioned reliability of science and logic, and so on."

My reply: Okay, but there's more to a worldview than that. Also, what is meant by "and so on?" Is it "morality?" Sin? Salvation? There are secular answers to how man might be saved (e.g., Prozac!), New Age (e.g., learn to become one with everything, btw, that's how Zen Buddhists ask for hot dogs: "Make me one with everything!"), other Religions (e.g., works).

Ben said: "Also, I would be very pleased to hear why you think an atheistic position can still account for such entities."

My reply: Well that would involve a whole lotta explication. Minimally, one example might be if they just denied the deontologist demand of an "account." (Depending on how you're using the term). Why couldn't they, say, following Alston, take, say, the reliability of the senses as a "basic belief" in need of no more "basicer" warrant for it? And, this gets into what it even means to come at the atheist with the worn-out sayings: "You can't account for X." Why think that? How would it be proven? By saying that atheists only believe in materialism, and so logic isn't material, so they can't believe in it? But not all atheists are materialists, and, furthermore, materialism only states that all *substances* are physical, not everything whatever, e.g. properties, propositions, etc. So, what's the argument even? What Bahnsen gave against Stein (forgetting the above point about materialists) in "the Great Debate?" But there he only dealt with (i) a priori, (ii) a posteriori, and (iii) linguistic justifications for logic; and specific positions *within* those branches, at that! On top of that, in his paper he quoted from in the debate, he said it was only a *program* for how one "might* show how an atheist cannot account for, say, logic. But where's the universal argument? The atheists who wither (a) don't hold to (i) - (iii), or don't hold to the sub-positions attacked in (i) - (iii), are left asking "What about us, Dr. Bahnsen? Why can't *we* account for logic?" So, even if I didn't take the time to go through the more sophisticated attempts on the part of atheists, I could just as well say, "Why do *you* think that *no* atheist *can* account for said entities?" On a related note, we need to stop saying "Atheism can't account for _____." There is no such worldview or position called "Atheism." Atheists have disparate views on logic, science, ethics, etc. You simply can't lump them together and kill the whole lot with a silver bullet.

Ben said: "Can you explain this a bit further please? I mean, I think I know what you are saying (that the explanation of one entity does not sufficiently entail a worldview, and that more coherence and other explanations are also required), but please tell me if otherwise."

My reply: Sure. It is a mistake for presuppositionalists to think that they can run every worldview through the same gauntlet. For example, to say that A worldview can't account for x, y, and z, doesn't mean that B worldview can't account for x, y, and z. Perhaps B can account for x but not z or y. So, for example, a critique against naturalistic evolution might argue that they cannot account for how we got here, for how life began from non-life. But it doesn't follow that, say, Islam can't account for *this*. Surely they can tell us how life got started: "Allahdidit!"

Ben said: "If someone brought up the fact that a new worldview could be concocted alongside Christianity, I thought, then they would have reason to see my presuppositional view as flawed."

My reply: They would only have said reason because you puffed your chest out and said, "I can prove my position by the IMPOSSIBILITY OF THE CONTRARY." But if you scale it down a bit, argue against their specific worldview, hit them where they are at, deal with the person-variable nature of apologetic discussions, then this out isn't open to them. And it will be more persuasive too.

Ben said: "Can you recommend some reading or links to help with a more sophisticated presuppositional apologetic, please?"

My reply: I'm afraid there isn't much. You can take the general gist of persuppositionalism: worldview vs. worldview. Presuppositions color your word and help determine what is accepted as fact or good evidence. Etc. I'd recommend becoming conversant with the philosophical landscape (broadly: metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics), and then studying through a couple good reformed systematic theologies so that you are fully versed in the internal coherence of your own worldview. Become somewhat able in exegetical abilities so as to deal with the variations of the text of Scripture you will come up against, and to be able to show how you derived your view from the text. I'd also recommend familiarity with church history. The best apologist is a mixture between a theologian and a philosopher. The better you are at both, the better apologist you will be. Unfortunately, many apologists.philosophers are horrible at theology, and many theologians are incoherent and sloppy and imprecise, ambiguous and vague, which is all a symptom of their lack of philosophical tools.

Ben said: "Also, I just want to let you know how much of a relief this quote is to me; although I just had my last official day of high school today, I still recognized that the whole "logic requires the Christian God" argument seemed a bit too "high school" and was sincerely hoping that presuppositional apologetics had much more to offer."

My reply: Better to find out now than when you're old ! And, presuppositionalism does have more to offer, but to stay inside a "presuppositionalist-only" box will be to miss all the other great thinkers God gave the church. Become a MMA apologist. Don't focus on the ground game to the detriment of your stand-up game. Don't focus on power over against conditioning. Don't study to beat only one variation of wrestling. Study Greco Roman, Freestyle, etc. To have the killer move against Greco Roman wrestlers is good as far as it goes, but if that's all you've studied, and then you puff your chest out and claim you can beat anyone, and then a freestyle guys comes along, you might make a few good moves, but you may very well lose.

__________________
J. B. Atken
John Knox PCA
Layman, M.A. student at Louisiana College