"Best" Presuppositionalists

Status
Not open for further replies.

User20004000

Puritan Board Sophomore
He's touted as today's Bahnsen. I find him engaging. Almost all his books invariably have chapters on logical fallacies. I think he is trying to bridge the gap between books for the academic/theory (Bahnsen, Van Til) and books for popular usage (Schaeffer, Keller). I'm going to read more of Lisle and have a better opinion.

I listened to this and commented on FB. Makes a very common mistake or two.

Comments:

He needs to be more nuanced. More than a couple times he collapsed a rational account of knowledge into the possession of knowledge. He makes it sound as if that without the former one cannot possess the latter. He would do well to flesh out internalist vs externalist conceptions of epistemology as it relates to knowledge and the ultimate *justification* for the knowledge all people possess. From there he can segue into special revelation (as opposed to the necessity of an arbitrary conceptual scheme) as the justification for all knowledge (if not also the possibility of knowledge, which would be a bit more ambitious). There’s a relevant difference between having externalist warrant and an internalist justification for the concept of warrant. Lastly, how does he define the Christian worldview?

 

User20004000

Puritan Board Sophomore
It appears that Frame falls into the same error(s) as Oliphint regarding God's immutability. I'll have to find the quote. I was alerted to this through my buddies at Reformed Forum, since they are in the thick of all that junk with Oliphint.

Frame is inclined to render as a transcendental argument conclusions that are not arrived at transcendentally. He doesn’t distinguish between causation requiring God as the first cause and the possibility of causality being intelligible only if God. Big difference, which Bahnsen and Butler both pointed out.
 

retroGRAD3

Puritan Board Sophomore
Strictly speaking in epistemology, asking someone "Oh yeah, how do you know that" is simply iterative skepticism, and it is subject to the same defeaters that apply to skepticism.

I remain unimpressed. It's true not everyone can be super smart, but if you cut corners in the early stages--and that is exactly what that is--it will come back to bite you.
That makes sense, agreed.
 

ZackF

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Frame is inclined to render as a transcendental argument conclusions that are not arrived at transcendentally. He doesn’t distinguish between causation requiring God as the first cause and the possibility of causality being intelligible only if God. Big difference, which Bahnsen and Butler both pointed out.
Glad you mentioned Butler.
 

jwright82

Puritan Board Graduate
I listened to this and commented on FB. Makes a very common mistake or two.

Comments:

He needs to be more nuanced. More than a couple times he collapsed a rational account of knowledge into the possession of knowledge. He makes it sound as if that without the former one cannot possess the latter. He would do well to flesh out internalist vs externalist conceptions of epistemology as it relates to knowledge and the ultimate *justification* for the knowledge all people possess. From there he can segue into special revelation (as opposed to the necessity of an arbitrary conceptual scheme) as the justification for all knowledge (if not also the possibility of knowledge, which would be a bit more ambitious). There’s a relevant difference between having externalist warrant and an internalist justification for the concept of warrant. Lastly, how does he define the Christian worldview?

You know the greatest failure I ever had was trying to intellectually explain rape to a rape victim, I failed. Had I been more caring I might have gotten better. Subtlety is the presups advantage. Be like Schaeffer but talk like van til.
 

User20004000

Puritan Board Sophomore
You know the greatest failure I ever had was trying to intellectually explain rape to a rape victim, I failed. Had I been more caring I might have gotten better. Subtlety is the presups advantage. Be like Schaeffer but talk like van til.

Not sure I’m tracking. But please appreciate if this wasn’t clear, the point of the interview was to explain and defend a methodology, not explain and defend the faith or God’s existence. As such, it was to have been an intellectual discussion by the nature of the case. It pertained to epistemology and by extension metaphysics and ethics.

It’d be nice if knowledge of God’s existence wasn’t confused with God’s self-existence when it pertains to the possibility of knowledge. This misconception was raised in a previous interview with Anderson. What is often confused is (p) God makes knowledge possible, and (p*) without belief in God one cannot give a rational account for knowledge. Both are true. What’s not true is (p**) belief in God makes knowledge possible.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top