The title pretty well expresses my question: I do not have any difficulty seeing why an atheistic worldview is unacceptable because it cannot justify the accountability of reason, science, etc., but I want to know how Islam or Judaism or possibly some newly concocted hoax cannot equally well explain them.

Why does the Christian God account for reason but not Allah? Further, what is stopping a person confronted with presuppositional tactics from just saying he believes in a separate God that can create reason, but not a god represented by any world religion today?

I see this as one of my final hurdles to fully embracing the presuppositional apologetic method, and I would deeply appreciate your responses.

__________________
Ben - C&MA - Ohio

"What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ." - Philippians 3:8

Because the other competing ideas of religion are all false and illogical on their face.

While presuppositionalism will lead you naturally away from atheism and into theism, it is not hard to surmise that one would be led to Christianity, assuming they are following the logical trail.

Judaism, Islam, etc. can all and have been proven false and/or incomplete in the face of serious criticism. Christianity remains, however. Judaism denies the Messiah that was promised to them, and Islam is a form of Christian heresey. Buddishm et al are also easily disposed of as the notion karma is illogical on it's face, at least according to my understanding, which may be flawed.

At the end of the day, however, keep in mind that it is not the presuppositionalist argument that will lead one to God, but that God will draw to Himself all of those who are His. What you are asking of this apologetic stance is something that it, and indeed no apologetic approach does or can offer, i.e. a path for the unbeliever to Christ. God is the only one that can work in their hearts and lead them to Him.

I would also suggest you re-examine you view on what exactly apologetics is, as you might be confusing it with evangelism. Certainly, in our apologetic task we want to call the unbeliever to faith and repentence in Christ, but seeing their conversion isn't the point, or at least I don't think so, and niether did John Calvin or Greg Bahnsen. Both these men saw the purpose to be closing the blasphemous mouth of the unbeliever, and presuppositionalism certainly does that, see generally the Bahnsen v. Stein debate (as I'm told).



Does anyone know where one can view the Bahnsen v. Stien debate? I would really like to see that man get taken to the intellectual woodshed.

__________________
Andrew DeShazo, Deacon, Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church, Memphis, TN
"All of us stumble in many ways, but if anyone is never at fault in what he says, then he is mature, able to control his whole body."(James 3:2)

Because other worldviews are boring and are easily out-narrated.

Islam cannot account for love because their god is a monad who could only communicate/relate by sheer power.

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

It's not so much that I am unsure of what atheists would do once they abandon atheism; rather, I want to see if there are any true "safety valves" that could hinder belief in Christ, any outlets that would falsely set themselves up as equal to Christ, setting each to be simply options.

I don't know if this is fit for a separate thread, but what exactly about Judaism (assuming it maintains a trinitarian belief as the OT mandates) and Buddhism are illogical? The belief that Judaism denies its promised Messiah seems to be viciously circular, and I need to see how exactly karma is illogical, for my understanding of it and of Eastern religions is very limited.

Very true. What I am trying to do is see how a truly intellectually honest person (who would have to be regenerated by the Holy Spirit in order not to suppress the truth) could arrive at Christianity. I am not trying necessarily to find a perfect persuasion to Christianity, but rather a flawless proof of it.



Also, I think you might have missed an earlier question of mine: what prevents people from concocting religious beliefs to justify a worldview? For example, if a person said that he doesn't believe in any world religion, but that he believes in a trinitarian god that allowed for logic, science, etc. who was explicitly NOT of the Judeo-Christian variety, what would be a way to logically convince him of Christianity? Assume in this situation, again, that the person is intellectually honest and not suppressing any truth.

Also, thanks for the response.

__________________
Ben - C&MA - Ohio

"What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ." - Philippians 3:8

Hey Ben, welcome to the Puritan Board.

There is nothing that stops someone from concocting a religious world view that is consistent. Ultimately, the farthest you can take the atheist would be to a generic Deism. Christian belief is ultimately based upon subjective religious experience. The Gospel is a foolish message, and would be foolish to us too had not God opened our hearts to receive the message.

I'll be back to post later, you are perceptive, Ben. What you pointed out is the problem with both approaches to apologetics, evidentialism and presuppositionalism.

We are fools for Christ.

__________________
Andrew Clerebout
Joy Baptist Church, IFB (Westland, MI)

"Let us never forget that truth, distorted and exaggerated, can become the mother of the most dangerous heresies." - J.C. Ryle, Holiness

I have had similar concerns about presuppositionalism. In what way have Judaism and Islam been proved false that some haven't applied to Christianity? I assume that many would disagree with the idea that Judaism and Islam, unlike Christianity, have been objectively proven false.

The approach has seemed to me at times to beg the question. "Logic and morality cannot exist unless God exists" assumes that God is the only explanation for logic and morality. Is this claim verifiable? Why can't I use the TAG to prove the existence of Allah, or, for that matter, Zeus?

__________________
Davidius
Husband of Emilia
Member: First Reformed Presbyterian Church of Durham (RPCNA) - Durham, NC
Currently in the process of transferring membership to an as-yet-undecided church in Chapel Hill
Student: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, German Literature and Classics

Not sure that this is presuppositional but here goes anyways:

Judaism and Islam are false because they fall short of the standard of Christianity; that is, neither accepts Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.

Part of your argument, Davidius, is correct: No argument by itself can prove anything more than a generic God. The God of natural revelation. Only Scripture, or a Scriptural argument, can lead one to Christ.

__________________
BJ Mora
Grace OPC, Modesto, CA
Reformed & Presbyterian Churches & Denominations in North America

They are boring and are out-narrated. They don't have a compelling story. Our metanarrative incorporates theirs'.

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

But there's a difference between being compelling and being true. I don't understand how this answers the question whether there can only be one explanation for the existence of logic and morality.

__________________
Davidius
Husband of Emilia
Member: First Reformed Presbyterian Church of Durham (RPCNA) - Durham, NC
Currently in the process of transferring membership to an as-yet-undecided church in Chapel Hill
Student: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, German Literature and Classics

On face-value, it doesn't.

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

I understand and appreciate what you are getting at.* That is why I don't hold to the hard version of TAG.* Most Van Tillians don't.* I used to.* I had good argments, too.* But I no longer found them convincing.*

I made comments about "outnarrating."* I say that, not because I think that whoever has the best story wins, but because everyone's belief-system tells a story (well, the more refined ones.* I don't feel any urge to rebut Aboriginal claims to truth at the moment).But my reading has carried me byond some of the Van Til-Classical-Evidential debates.*

I hesitate to say more at the moment.* Perhaps when I submit a book review on John Milbank I might add a few other comments.*

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

ok, this might address all the claims at once (never mind the TAG implications, that wasn't intended!)

Triablogue: Islam: The Muslim Message, Menace, and Meltdown

This is an example of how one would argue against Islam, both internally and externally.

Here's Hays and Frame interacting with the claim that Islam can step up to the plate and do what we can do:

Part 1: Johnson on Van Til

Part 2: Triablogue: Van Til v. Muhammad

And James Anderson gives his own thoughts:

Comments on John Johnson's Response to Frame & Hays

Ben said: I do not have any difficulty seeing why an atheistic worldview is unacceptable because it cannot justify the accountability of reason, science, etc., but I want to know how Islam or Judaism or possibly some newly concocted hoax cannot equally well explain them.

My reply: I've actually found the atheist position also resistant to certain critiques. My guess is that a weak understanding of what an atheist could proffer is being used, here. I also don't know what "etc" is? Is that "salvation?" How does Islam and Judaism "explain" them, and is it a consistent explanation (e.g., their own book says "without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness). Are we going to say that a works based view of salvation is really "just as good as" the Christian story?

Ben said: Why does the Christian God account for reason but not Allah?

My reply: This is an unfair demand. Presuppositionalists, not even most hard-core TAGsters, say that each worldview cannot explain precisely the same thing. So, if a Muslim could explain reason, that doesn't mean he can explain how God is immanent and transcendent, revealing and interact with men. Explaining reason doesn't mean they can explain how man can get out of his predicament. I mean, they give an explanation ("Be good!"), but that is inadequate.

Ben said: "Further, what is stopping a person confronted with presuppositional tactics from just saying he believes in a separate God that can create reason, but not a god represented by any world religion today?"

My reply: Nothing "stops them." But note that this move won't work for the committed: atheist, Muslim, Jew, Mormon, Moonie, Buddhist, etc. So, the person would have to *drop* their previous worldview in exchange for a made up worldview. One without any historical credentials, I might add. At least Jesus was a real person. How do they explain salvation? By works? Or did someone have to die for our sins? Who was it? An historical figure? As you can see, once someone tries to spell out the details, that's when problems come. These kinds of "what if" stories usually work better in the abstract. At the end of the day, I guess I'll just point out that my opponent had to "make up" a worldview to beat me. They can't be serious if they think this really provides them a refuge from the God revealed in the Bible.

Ben said: "I see this as one of my final hurdles to fully embracing the presuppositional apologetic method, and I would deeply appreciate your responses."

My reply: But of course "presuppositionalism" doesn't *require* one to hold to the "impossibility of the contrary", silver bullet type arguments.
Andrew said: "Christian belief is ultimately based upon subjective religious experience."

My reply: Of course this confuses *reasons* for belief with *causes* of belief. I also wouldn't agree. Certainly there are some people out there that believe based on reasons. Perhaps this is misguided, but at least *they* think they believe based on reasons and not on subjective experience. I certainly don't have any in principle objections to someone believing based on reasons, but I don't think it is necessary one believe based on reasons for their belief to be rational. Furthermore, one can have reasons for almost all his Christian belief. Indeed, a Christian who believes in the inerrancy of the Bible has a reason for his religious beliefs: God told me. If God says X, then X is true. Now, someone might say that that is not a *proof* for why *they* should believe, but of course I didn't say it was a proof for why they should believe. I said it was a reason *for the believer*. I would add that it is a proof that the unbeliever *should* believer, whether they *will* is another matter. A matter of *persuasion*. And the argument from the inerrant text usually isn't a "persuasive" argument.

Davidus said: "The approach has seemed to me at times to beg the question. "Logic and morality cannot exist unless God exists" assumes that God is the only explanation for logic and morality."

My reply: This is a rather weak and truncated distillation of a presuppositionalists argument. Christians need to progress beyond the simplistic expressions of the argument. They need to move beyond the (admitted!) *high school level* formulations of the argument that Bahnsen gave to kids and beginning college students in an effort to "dumb down" Van Til. I think, sometimes, that Bahnsen actually did the apologetic community more harm than good. He fosters intellectual laziness. E.g., "Look at how he beat down Stein, guess I don't need to study ever again. I'll just ask everyone n the world where logic came from."

Davidus said: "Why can't I use the TAG to prove the existence of Allah, or, for that matter, Zeus?"

My reply: Well, perhaps TAG could be employed by a made up worldview, but no concrete ones I know of can do the job. See the above links."

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

First of all, I sincerely thank you for those links. I am sure I will enjoy reading the "Muslim Message" article, as well as the other links. Though, I do not think this thankfulness is consummated, as I can not find how to officially "thank" to improve your tally. Further help would be appreciated.

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. Also, I would be very pleased to hear why you think an atheistic position can still account for such entities. I guess what is important, though, is (as you said) that the explanations are consistent: not so much that a certain worldview can account for any one of these entities, but that it can account for all of them and remain internally coherent.

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.

That's a good point. I never really expected anyone to pragmatically create a new worldview, and the reason I brought up the point was more as a means of silencing an objection. 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.

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

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.

Thanks again!

__________________
Ben - C&MA - Ohio

"What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ." - Philippians 3:8

If natural revelation leads only to a generic God, then would not those who never get a chance to read the Bible, or only hear it taught poorly can be with excuse?

The best analogy of my current view of natural revelation is that it is God leaving his fingerprints or ID on the world. One can then look at that ID verses the ID of every other religion and only Christianity matches the fingerprints.

When people in some far out place sacrifice their children to the Sun god etc. They have no excuse because all the evidence they need to know that Sun god is not "The: God is before them.

CT

__________________
Hermonta Godwin
Christ The King PCA
Raleigh, NC

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

http://www.owenanderson.net/reviews/Augustine.doc

Amazon.com: Reason and Worldviews: Warfield,...

My Philosophy Notes - Philosophy of Religion

These are the books/articles that have most influenced me and my current views.

CT

__________________
Hermonta Godwin
Christ The King PCA
Raleigh, NC