What are the basics of Presuppositionalism and who are its main advocates and opponents. Van Til rings a bell?

Note I have never looked into this so be simple

Man starts with basic pre-theoretical (sorry for the technical word) assumptions about reality. These assumptions form a network. More dominant presuppositions determine how one evaluates evidence, for example.

I have Bahnsen's book on Van Til on computer. I will try to copy sufficient passages later this afternoon.

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

__________________
J. M. - Baptist - Ontario, Canada - Feileadh Mor

"Nothing is more seductive for man than his freedom of conscience. But nothing is a greater cause of suffering."
The Brothers Karamazov

Thanks both; are there competeing theories of Presuppositionalism? I know that Clark and Van Til opposed one another. Were they both Presuppositionalists? How does Presuppositionalism help in apologetics?

I'm still learning, but I think it helps because you begin, like the Bible begins, with the statement that God exists. You don't go into this "neutral zone" that the atheist will try to lure you into...In reality, there is no neutral zone. The second you step out of your zone, you've entered their zone.

It's great because you have the opportunity to force the atheist to be consistent with his presuppositions. You push them to the natural end of their belief system. In doing this with atheists, you can even point out how they borrow morality, logic, etc. from Christian worldview. Atheists can't account for morality, logic, etc. if they stay within the realms of their own worldview.

Ummmm...I'm done. Like I said I'm still learning about it. I hope that some of my babble helps LOL...

__________________
~Gloria M.~
Member, Trinity Presbyterian Church, PCA, Southeast Georgia

"Turn my eyes from looking at worthless things; and give me life in your ways." Psalm 119:37

According to presuppositional apologetics, the Bible is self-authenticating. Everyone has what they consider to be an ultimate authority. How does one authenticate an ultimate authority? One must use their ultimate authority to prove their ultimate authority. It makes no sense to use a lesser authority to authenticate an ultimate authority. Unbelievers have an ultimate authority and they also use their ultimate authority to authenticate their ultimate authority. For example, unbelievers will use logic to prove logic, human reason to prove human reason, science to prove science, and so on. Critics of presuppositional apologetics like William Lane Craig and Norman Geisler say that using your ultimate authority to prove your ultimate authority is circular reasoning, but they fail to see that circular reasoning is not fallacious in the case where one is authenticating an ultimate authority.

__________________
Curt Hayashida
member, Community Bible Church (Non-denominational)
Vallejo, CA

All reasoning is circular but remember, there are narrow circles and broad circles. Narrow circles are not persuasive and persuasion is the goal of apologetics. Making a broad circle argument may involve bringing in, dare we say it, evidentialism if it will help to persuade. Of course the evidence is always interpreted by our presuppositions.

__________________
Bob Vigneault (Bawb Vēēn-yo)
I just know there's got to be a pony in here somewhere!

The Heartbeat of Heaven (blog) MySpace (Music), MySpace (Personal)
Member of Christ Presbyterian Church, Janesville, WI OPC www.christ-opc.org

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

Hello AV,

I think Jacob captured in broad terms the idea behind presuppositionalism. Here is the philosophical basis for presuppostional apologetics:

1. We all have a worldview that answers questions such as what is real, how do we know, and what is right an wrong.
2. This worldview is made up of a network of presuppositions - propositions that we hold as being true not on the basis of having proved them to be true, but rather are the basis upon which we prove other things to be true. An axiom is somewhat like a presupposition.
3. Because of the fall, man's presuppositions are very skewed.
4. Since presuppostions are the basis upon which rational inquiry is based, and since fallen man's presuppositions are skewed, then an appropriate apologetic must take this into account. This is why the presuppostionalist is critical of classical and evidentiary apologetics. The presuppositionalists feel as if these apologists miss this point altogether.
5. The answer the presuppositionalist provides is an analysis of the various pressupostions to which ones can actually account for human experience. The idea being that if a worldview (network of pressupositions) fails to account for some key point, then it fails in some way.

Brian

__________________
Brian Bosse
Faith Community Church
Tucson, Arizona
Scientiam Dei

RJS, I find presuppositional apologetics helpful, but not always in everyday convo with unbelievers. It's been my experiance that people have a hard time following transcendental arguments and there is always the criticism that presuppositionalism or the TAG doesn't prove the God of the Bible, just "a" God...or that presuppositionalism can only disprove the argument in front of it and not all arguments.

I'm still new and learning as well.

j

Thank you Brian. So does that lead to the view that "truth can only be found in Scripture"?

You are confusing TAG with presuppositional methodology. One can be a presuppositionalist and use evidences all day long, although I have personally found it far more helpful to challenge their presuppositions. http://www.vantil.info/articles/vtfem.html#AIII1

As far as TAG can only disprove the argument in front of it (don't confuse presuppositionalism with a single argument), so what?

I don't mean to sound harsh in this post at all, but this is how we learn.

__________________
Caleb
Trinity Baptist Church
Spokane, WA

TAG being?

Hello Richard,

Gordon Clark would say that the only knowledge we can say we have is that derived from Scripture. This ultimately fails, though. There are some truths necessary for knowledge that are independent of Scripture. The laws of logic are an example of this. If I do not presuppose the law of non-contradiction, then I cannot know what Scripture teaches in the first place. In this sense, whatever knowledge is derived from Scripture is dependent upon the laws of logic. These laws of logic, which are independent of Scripture, must be real knowledge or what is derived from Scripture is not real knowledge. So, if Scripture can give real knowledge, then not all real knowledge is found in Scripture.

The point of presuppositionalism is that the machinery in fallen man by which we obtain knowledge is broken, and therefore will lead us to wrong conclusions. Think of the passage in Matthew 6 that says if the light that is in you is darkness, then how great is that darkness. The "light" that is in an unbeliever is darkness, and as such, on the basis of th unbeliever's commitments, he will not come to proper conclusions. As new creatures we are to take our thoughts captive to the obedience of Christ. We are to renew our minds. We are to allow the Holy Spirit and Scripture to inform our presuppositions.

Now, is there knowledge apart from the Bible? Yes. We hold many truths that are independent of Scripture. The laws of logic are an example of this. Moral obligations are another example of this. I do not need the Scripture to know that I ought not to murder, etc...In fact, some presuppositionalsts believe that man being made in God's image is the basis for this type of knowledge. It is a knowledge that is not mediated; rather, it is immediate.

Sincerely,

Brian

But Brian as this really smart fellow tells us the scriptures are filled with logic and so scripture demonstrates logic, establishes logic, validates and justifies logic. If logic was not justified by scripture then how can we say it is true. The Bible is filled with examples of the law of non-contradiction and therefore it is indeed a law for it is justified by God's Word.

I don't think I'm confusing the two, but noting how they often go hand in hand and are often used together.

How can a truly presuppositional argument use "evidences?" I thought it was a presuppositional argument? [VanTil vs. Clark.... ]

I listen to the radio program that told the presuppositionalist to respond to this object with "so what?" I know I'm new to the study of philosophy but isn't the TAG argument guilty of the fallacy of induction? Attempting to assert itself as true when it is only true when compared to the worldview in front of it?

RJS, see Brian's blog here.

Who’s to say that a presuppositionalist has to always use presuppositional arguments? This has been unargued for.

Do you mean, we should respond to this objection with *more* than just a ‘so what’? Why? It takes care of the objection nicely.

This isn’t what TAG does. If TAG is successful, it not only refutes the philosophy directly opposing it in any given debate, but it also refutes any given philosophy where the presuppositions taken down by TAG are vital to that philosophy. So even if there are many variations of my interlocutors philosophy, TAG takes these down as well. Besides, I reject the strong modal version of TAG. Again, so what?

So what?

See Brian's blog.

What are the best books to read on this?

I ordered some of Van Til earlier.

What did you think of Brian's blog?

I'm not sure why you put the 'So what' after that quote...

Anyways, I have read Brian's critique of Van Tilian Presupp. From what I remember, he argues against the strong modal version of TAG. Like I have said before, I don't hold to that version of TAG.

If I remember correctly, Brian has no problem with using the version of TAG that doesn't claim to prove the impossibility of the contrary. See my above post for why there is no inductive fallacy.

p.s. by 'strong modal version of TAG' I mean the claim that it proves the impossibility of the contrary, or as Brian puts it, gives "objective certain" proof.

The RTS ITunes courses includes an apologetics course by Dr. John Frame which is presuppositional in approach.

__________________
Kenneth Murphy
Covenant of Grace Church - Member
St. Charles, MO

Hello Bob,

Where did you find this guy? He is an idiot!

Seriously, the point I was trying to make is that Scripture does not justify the laws of logic. It cannot be the case. Here is the idea...

Rule 1: The justification of all knowldge must be based on justified knowledge. (If the justification of X is based on unjustified Y, then X is not justified.)

In order for me to justify anything from Scripture, certain apriori knowledge is necessary and is logically prior to my understanding of any knowledge from Scripture. The question that needs to be asked is if this apriori knowledge is justified? If not, then by rule 1 anything derived from Scripture is not justified. If so, then how is it justified? If you say from Scripture, then what you are saying is that Scripture along with certain apriori knowledge justifies apriori knowledge. Already we are in a vicious circle. Again, we can ask what justifies the apriori knowledge that is used with Scripture to justify the apriori knowledge, and we end up with an infinite regression. If we stop this at any point, then we simply beg the question. As such, apriori knowledge, such as the laws of logic, must be justified apart from Scripture if Scripture is to give us justified knowledge.

Sincerely,

Brian

But Brian, saying that "Scripture is the Word of God and therefore it justifies itself" is a complete argument. It's a good argument. Yes, it's a narrow circle but scripture as God's word is justified by definition.

Hello Bob,

Let's say I presuppose the Scriptures to be the Word of God. It's my axiom so to speak. This axiom is granted and justified as it is. However, for me to go from this to the derived truth that salvation is by faith alone, there is required more information than simply that the Scriptures are the Word of God. I have to know that "salvation is by faith alone" is part of the Scriptures. I also have to know the laws of logic to draw these types of conclusions. I also have to know the nature of God (that He is infalible and always tells the truth). So, there is additional knowledge that I need to know that is apart from Scripture whether it be hermenutical rules, the laws of logic, or whatever. If this knowledge is not justified prior to my analysis of Scripture, then my analysis of Scripture is based on unjustified knowledge.

Brian