difference between Evidential and Presuppositionalism

[Robbie Schmidtberger]

What do you think is the key difference between the two methods?

The two options that I can think of most readily is the role of Scripture and the extent of the noetic effect of sin. (Noetic effect = the extent of sin's twisting upon the human mind.)

 

[InevitablyReformed]

Hi Robbie,

Man, I just don't think I'm qualified to answer your question sufficiently. However, in short, I think that the presuppositionalist denies that man can reason TO God and unlike the evidentialist, the evidence just isn't enough for the unbeliever.

This is probably oversimplified but hopefully it's not dead wrong.

 

[Robbie Schmidtberger]

Daniel,
I think you are spot on. Presuppositional apologetics strive to be 100% consistent with Scripture. Those who are reformed and evidential, like RC Sproul, admit that one needs the Holy Spirit to regenerate their hearts, as we apart from Christ cannot save ourselves. They state and argue that we can use science and reason to prove the existence of a god, but that is all we can do. Denny Prutow, of the Reformed Presbyterian Theological Seminary here in Pittsburgh, argued that the Westminster Confession taught this.

But is this it?

PS. Small world - my wife and I attended your congregation on our honeymoon last May. We were in Charleston the same time as Spolleto (spelling?).

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

From what I understand presuppositionalist will acknowledge evidence is useful and can lead to understanding but not to conversion. They affirm that all men know there is a God even when he denies it.

Am I correct?

 

[Blue Tick]

Daniel,
I think you are spot on. Presuppositional apologetics strive to be 100% consistent with Scripture. Those who are reformed and evidential, like RC Sproul, admit that one needs the Holy Spirit to regenerate their hearts, as we apart from Christ cannot save ourselves. They state and argue that we can use science and reason to prove the existence of a god, but that is all we can do. Denny Prutow, of the Reformed Presbyterian Theological Seminary here in Pittsburgh, argued that the Westminster Confession taught this.

I agree. Evidentialism can do a fine job of proving that there is a God, but this will not convince non believers to believe in God. Within evidentialism how is the gospel presented? Presuppositionalists labor to present the gospel and the need to believe in God; which is different from the evidentialist approach which labors to prove that a God exists.

 

[Jimmy the Greek]

Evidentialist approach extends to more than the existence of God, e.g. including the historicity of Christ and the resurrection.

I see the evidentialist as making the argument that agnostic, atheistic, or philisophical opponents are exercising more of a "blind faith" than they accuse the Christians of -- and in the face of historical evidence.

But I'm just shooting from the hip here.

This of course is no suggestion that one may be converted by accepting facts alone. But the HS can use any means he sees fit to work a change in one's heart.

 

[Answerman]

Evidentialists argue for their presuppositions whereas presuppositionalists argue that without Christian presuppositions, arguments would not be intelligible.

 

[cih1355]

Evidentialists present the evidence that is in favor of Christianity. They will use good evidence to prove that God exists, that the Bible is the word of God, that Jesus is the Son of God, and that Jesus rose from the dead. Then, they will explain the gospel of Jesus Christ.

According to presuppositionalists, there is much more than just good evidence that Christianity is true. God has revealed Himself to man in such a way that man has no excuse for not believing in God. Presuppositionalists do not say to unbelievers, "Here is some good evidence in favor of Christianity. You weigh it out." Presuppositionalists argue that unbelievers believe in things that assume God's existence such as absolute moral values, the laws of logic, the existence of evil, and so on. Moreover, unbelievers cannot justify their independence from God. Unbelievers support their commitment to independence from God by arguments founded on their commitment to independence.

 

[MW]

All agree that mere knowledge does not convert. Nor is it a matter of saying sin affects the intellectual ability of man and only the Holy Spirit can convert. The intellectual ability of man is affected morally by sin, not propositionally, so man can know things which pertain to God; and further, when the Holy Spirit converts, He uses intellectual means, and so might use evidential arguments.

The real difference is this: evidential arguments require a starting point which presupposes rationality. Man's rationality is either given by God or possessed autonomously. Where man begins with the belief that he is an independent being and can arrive at facts by a neutral observation of them, the evidence presented to him and the conclusion drawn from it can only reaffirm that presupposition. Hence an evidentialist may in fact be providing the fuel whereby the fire of sinful autonomy is maintained.

Here is an illustration to show why presuppositionalism is important, borrowed from Robert Candlish's commentary on Genesis. A man finds a watch on the beach; from that watch he reasons all kinds of qualities about its maker; but all the while the man is the master of his reasoning, and frames a watchmaker which is in accord with his own biases. Afterwards the watchmaker himself comes to the beach and reveals himself to the man that he is the one who made the watch; he begins to tell the man who he is and what he is like; it is clear that the watchmaker is now the master of the knowledge which the man learns of him. In the former case what we have is phenomenal revelation and man is the creator of the facts; in the latter case we have propositional revelation and man is the receptor of the facts. Presuppositionalism is concerned to show that man must be the receptor of the revelation of God the Creator and Redeemer.

 

[Cheshire Cat]

Here is an illustration to show why presuppositionalism is important, borrowed from Robert Candlish's commentary on Genesis.

A man finds a watch on the beach; from that watch he reasons all kinds of qualities about its maker; but all the while the man is the master of his reasoning, and frames a watchmaker which is in accord with his own biases.

What makes man the 'master' of his reasoning by being able to reason *that* God exists by, say, a design argument from analogy?

Afterwards the watchmaker himself comes to the beach and reveals himself to the man that he is the one who made the watch; he begins to tell the man who he is and what he is like; it is clear that the watchmaker is now the master of the knowledge which the man learns of him.

Okay, this strikes me as special revelation.

In the former case what we have is phenomenal revelation and man is the creator of the facts; in the latter case we have propositional revelation and man is the receptor of the facts. Presuppositionalism is concerned to show that man must be the receptor of the revelation of God the Creator and Redeemer.

In the former case we have a man contemplating a design argument for God's existence. In the latter we have special revelation. Is the latter what presuppositionalism amounts to? Why don't we just hit our opponents over the head with a big ol' bible and say, "Read It!!!"?

 

[panta dokimazete]

Well, presuppositionalism never concedes "neutrality" as it concerns Scripture. That is, it presupposes the truth of Scripture, the reasoning of God, over the reasoning of Man, therefore any rationale that does not acknowledge this is deficient.

So, yeah - not only do we say, "Read it!", we also say, "Humble yourself!" in the face of God's Word and not give one inch to another presupposition.

 

[Cheshire Cat]

Hi JD, notice I was addressing armourbearer's illustration of presuppositional apologetics. That is all fine and good if presuppositionalism never concedes "neutrality" as it concerns scripture.

That is, it presupposes the truth of Scripture, the reasoning of God, over the reasoning of Man, therefore any rationale that does not acknowledge this is deficient.

How is using the design argument from analogy exaulting the reasoning of Man over the Reasoning of God? What is wrong with classic arguments for the existence of God? Is it that they only yield probability?

So, yeah - not only do we say, "Read it!", we also say, "Humble yourself!" in the face of God's Word and not give one inch to another presupposition.

Okay...but that is not an argument. I was under the impression that we give arguments in apologetics.

 

[MW]

What makes man the 'master' of his reasoning by being able to reason *that* God exists by, say, a design argument from analogy?

He is reasoning his way to God and doing so by making himself the ultimate reference point of his conclusions. E.g., here is a watch; there must be a watchmaker; why? because MAN'S rationality demands it. That is, he is still master of the facts.

Is the latter what presuppositionalism amounts to?

God's self-authenticating revelation is basic for all apologetics, as is clear from reading classical defences as well as presuppositional approaches. The person examining an argument from design to Designer will undoubtedly have an idea of the Designer which has been formed by the knowledge which comes through special revelation. Evidential arguments are simply reasoning their way to the point where the Bible is received as a true revelation from God. A presuppositional approach honestly acknowledges this method and provides the necessary a priori background whereby the movement can be made from interpretation to fact while upholding the Sovereignty of the Revealer.

 

[Cheshire Cat]

What makes man the 'master' of his reasoning by being able to reason *that* God exists by, say, a design argument from analogy?

He is reasoning his way to God and doing so by making himself the ultimate reference point of his conclusions. E.g., here is a watch; there must be a watchmaker; why? because MAN'S rationality demands it. That is, he is still master of the facts.

I don't know what it means to be "master of the facts". I take it there is nothing wrong with reasoning one's way to God. The crucial negative aspect must be that he is doing so my "making himself the ultimate reference point of his conclusions". In your example, I assume this is "MAN'S rationality" that is the ultimate reference point. But why not say that it is rationality as such that demands it? This is not to say that rationality as such is a blank state, but that even given the noetic effects of sin one should be able to *reason* one's way to a creator. I fail to see how that makes one "master of the facts".

 

[Cheshire Cat]

How is the moral argument for God's existence, or the claim that "In order to make morality intelligible, the Christian God must exist", relevantly different from the design argument in terms of its 'starting point'?

 

[MW]

But why not say that it is rationality as such that demands it?

What rationality? Why should a man think that he has it or that it is ultimate for him? These questions reveal that there are a-priori ideas functioning in the background of the rational process which are influencing its outcomes.

 

[Cheshire Cat]

But why not say that it is rationality as such that demands it?

What rationality? Why should a man think that he has it or that it is ultimate for him? These questions reveal that there are a-priori ideas functioning in the background of the rational process which are influencing its outcomes.

One must use their rational faculties in reflecting on whether one has it. So that is one reason to think one has it. No doubt reasoning processes can be used as an argument for God's existence, in many different ways. No doubt there are things influencing the rational processes, but why think that these influencing factors overcome and pervert the design argument? Why think that in using one's rational faculties in the design argument, one is making the rational faculties ultimate?

 

[MW]

But why not say that it is rationality as such that demands it?

What rationality? Why should a man think that he has it or that it is ultimate for him? These questions reveal that there are a-priori ideas functioning in the background of the rational process which are influencing its outcomes.

One must use their rational faculties in reflecting on whether one has it. So that is one reason to think one has it. No doubt reasoning processes can be used as an argument for God's existence, in many different ways. No doubt there are things influencing the rational processes, but why think that these influencing factors overcome and pervert the design argument? Why think that in using one's rational faculties in the design argument, one is making the rational faculties ultimate?

It is not the design argument per se, but what the design argument is seeking to prove, which makes the reasoning process ultimate; and this is clear from your previous question, where you ask, "But why not say that it is rationality as such that demands it?" Such a question supposes reason possesses some instrinsic authority which entitles it to "demand." Whence does it derive this authority? The perverting factor is in the use of reason as an authority apart from God in order to discover God. The machine that requires an operator cannot produce the operator.

 

[Cheshire Cat]

It is not the design argument per se, but what the design argument is seeking to prove, which makes the reasoning process ultimate;

The design argument is seeking to prove a designer... How does seeking to prove a designer make the reasoning process ultimate?

and this is clear from your previous question, where you ask, "But why not say that it is rationality as such that demands it?" Such a question supposes reason possesses some instrinsic authority which entitles it to "demand."

Say rationality as such demands it. By this I mean the conclusion follows by logical inference from the premises, and one ought to grant the premises are true. Why does this suppose reason possesses some intrinsic authority?

Whence does it derive this authority?

I would say from God, which is why I like the Argument From Reason. But I don't see what this has to do with the design argument.

The perverting factor is in the use of reason as an authority apart from God in order to discover God.

I don't see how using our reasoning processes to argue that some feature has been designed and therefore requires a designer is using reason as an authority apart from God.

The machine that requires an operator cannot produce the operator.

Is this supposed to be similar to saying "the reasoning processes which require God's existence to function cannot lead to God's existence while functioning"? But why suppose that?

 

[MW]

I would say from God, which is why I like the Argument From Reason. But I don't see what this has to do with the design argument.

Haven't you here acknowledged that one must presuppose God to be the Author of human rationality in order to affirm the existence of God by a process of reason which argues from design to Designer?

 

[Iconoclast]

Would the difference be that an evidentialist would try to convince the Gaderene demoniac with clever argumentation, and maybe give him a copy of Josh McDowells Evidence that demands a verdict, rather than speak the word of God to him letting God set him free .

27And when he went forth to land, there met him out of the city a certain man, which had devils long time, and ware no clothes, neither abode in any house, but in the tombs.

28When he saw Jesus, he cried out, and fell down before him, and with a loud voice said, What have I to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God most high? I beseech thee, torment me not.

29(For he had commanded the unclean spirit to come out of the man. For oftentimes it had caught him: and he was kept bound with chains and in fetters; and he brake the bands, and was driven of the devil into the wilderness.)

30And Jesus asked him, saying, What is thy name? And he said, Legion: because many devils were entered into him.

31And they besought him that he would not command them to go out into the deep.

32And there was there an herd of many swine feeding on the mountain: and they besought him that he would suffer them to enter into them. And he suffered them.

33Then went the devils out of the man, and entered into the swine: and the herd ran violently down a steep place into the lake, and were choked.

34When they that fed them saw what was done, they fled, and went and told it in the city and in the country.

35Then they went out to see what was done; and came to Jesus, and found the man, out of whom the devils were departed, sitting at the feet of Jesus, clothed, and in his right mind: and they were afraid.

36They also which saw it told them by what means he that was possessed of the devils was healed.

37Then the whole multitude of the country of the Gadarenes round about besought him to depart from them; for they were taken with great fear: and he went up into the ship, and returned back again.

38Now the man out of whom the devils were departed besought him that he might be with him: but Jesus sent him away, saying,

39Return to thine own house, and shew how great things God hath done unto thee. And he went his way, and published throughout the whole city how great things Jesus had done unto him.

Many evidentialists do not believe in a dead Adam, but rather a wounded Adam. Sometimes they rely on clever arguments and wisdom of human words, which the Apostle Paul said he would not do.
Evidential arguments can be used to remove some time wasting obstacles to get the person focus on the reality of their sinful condition as revealed by the Holy law of God.

8But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully;

9Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,

10For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

 

[Pergamum]

Daniel,
I think you are spot on. Presuppositional apologetics strive to be 100% consistent with Scripture.

And I am sure that the evidentialists are trying to deny Scripture, huh?

 

[Pergamum]

I would say from God, which is why I like the Argument From Reason. But I don't see what this has to do with the design argument.

Haven't you here acknowledged that one must presuppose God to be the Author of human rationality in order to affirm the existence of God by a process of reason which argues from design to Designer?

Could you elaborate on this fine statement?

 

[Cheshire Cat]

I would say from God, which is why I like the Argument From Reason. But I don't see what this has to do with the design argument.

Haven't you here acknowledged that one must presuppose God to be the Author of human rationality in order to affirm the existence of God by a process of reason which argues from design to Designer?

Keep in mind that I would like to read your answers to the questions I posed above, which you haven't answered yet. With that being said, perhaps one could use reasoning processes qua reasoning processes as an indication of God's existence. But I don't see why one can't use the process of reason itself to argue for God's existence either. I don't see how this makes "man the ultimate reference point". This is why I asked why "the reasoning processes which require God's existence to function cannot lead to God's existence while functioning"?

Anyway, when we ask someone to use their reasoning ability when it comes to some text that allegedly shows that Reformed claims are true, does that mean "man is the master of rationality"? In other words, when we have exegetical debates, are we saying "man is the ultimate reference point"? If not, why not? What is the relevant difference?

"Suppose an unbeliever has a mental block holding him back from professing faith due to his belief that the bible teach`hes libertarian free will and that nature is therefore indeterminate. Suppose his thinks this irrational and says he can't believe the Bible. Couldn't I go to the Bible and show him that the Bible does not teach libertarianism & indeterminism? And since he's an unbeliever at the time, he's not granting authority. So, would I be "assuming he's the master?""

I have to give props to Paul M. for these last two arguments.

 

[MW]

Keep in mind that I would like to read your answers to the questions I posed above, which you haven't answered yet. With that being said, perhaps one could use reasoning processes qua reasoning processes as an indication of God's existence. But I don't see why one can't use the process of reason itself to argue for God's existence either. I don't see how this makes "man the ultimate reference point". This is why I asked why "the reasoning processes which require God's existence to function cannot lead to God's existence while functioning"?

I don't see any need to answer the other questions as they are encapsulated in this one. To prove God's existence by a reasoning process presupposes that the reasoning process is valid and authoritative. Whence does it derive this authority? Your answer is, "God." So really what you are saying is that the reasoning process does not prove God's existence but merely confirms it for you. The evidentialist argument therefore may be corroborative or elaborative, but it cannot be demonstrative. One must first affirm the presupposition that human rationality has authority before any evidential argument could be useful. Either it is an autonomous self-authenticating rationality, as the unbeliever supposes, or it is a theonomous God-given rationality, as the Christian supposes. Once we accept this either/or, we see that the first issue is one of presuppositions, not evidences.

 

[MW]

Could you elaborate on this fine statement?

Basically, I maintain that human rationality is created by God. All rational arguments require a belief in an Absolute Rationality to justify them. If one denies this Absolute Rationality he leaves himself with no basis for making any rational argument.

The machine (human reasoning) is purported to be manufacturing a product (evidence for the existence of God), but for the machine to manufacture any product (rationality of any kind) it requires an operator (God). It seems to me to be a simple matter of arguing back from the machine to the operator rather than using the machine to create a look-a-like product.

Please also see my previous post.

 

[Cheshire Cat]

To prove God's existence by a reasoning process presupposes that the reasoning process is valid and authoritative.

I don't know what you mean by "authoritative", but yes, it does presuppose they are vaild.

Whence does it derive this authority? Your answer is, "God." So really what you are saying is that the reasoning process does not prove God's existence but merely confirms it for you.

Depends on your definition of proof. I do think it is a good argument for God's existence, depending on your opponent's views (e.g. a naturalist), but one would be hard pressed to *prove* the God of Christianity alone from the Argument From Reason. A cumulative case argument would be needed.

The evidentialist argument therefore may be corroborative or elaborative, but it cannot be demonstrative. One must first affirm the presupposition that human rationality has authority before any evidential argument could be useful.

It still hasn't been shown why the AFR is demonstrative and the evidentialist argument is not. They are both arguments for God's existence, while the AFR is a metalogical argument and the design argument is not.

Either it is an autonomous self-authenticating rationality, as the unbeliever supposes, or it is a theonomous God-given rationality, as the Christian supposes. Once we accept this either/or, we see that the first issue is one of presuppositions, not evidences.

False dichotomy. This is using piety to make the argument sound better. It sure sounds good to label your opponents views as "autonomous" and "self-authenticating", but this has yet to be demonstrated.

To restate the arguments you haven't responded to above, "when we ask someone to use their reasoning ability when it comes to some text that allegedly shows that Reformed claims are true, does that mean "man is the master of rationality"? In other words, when we have exegetical debates, are we saying "man is the ultimate reference point"? If not, why not? What is the relevant difference?

"Suppose an unbeliever has a mental block holding him back from professing faith due to his belief that the bible teaches he has libertarian free will and that nature is therefore indeterminate. Suppose he thinks this irrational and says he can't believe the Bible. Couldn't I go to the Bible and show him that the Bible does not teach libertarianism & indeterminism? And since he's an unbeliever at the time, he's not granting authority. So, would I be "assuming he's the master?""

 

[MW]

To restate the arguments you haven't responded to above, "when we ask someone to use their reasoning ability when it comes to some text that allegedly shows that Reformed claims are true, does that mean "man is the master of rationality"? In other words, when we have exegetical debates, are we saying "man is the ultimate reference point"? If not, why not? What is the relevant difference?

The difference is that the text of Scripture is understood by all to be authoritative. What is says, God says, and what God says is final. There is a presupposition that God has spoken and we must submit. In an evidential argument, the reason of man is being appealed to as an authoritative source for determining the issue of God's existence. It is yet to be proved that God exists, and hence human rationality is considered the ultimate authority before which all must bow.

 

[ChristianTrader]

Is there not an argument at different levels happening here?

Epistemologically, one says that proper reasoning leads to X, while metaphysically, one says that God is the foundation of reasoning, logic, etc.

It seems that Rev. Winzer is saying something similar to Kant saying that the Ontological argument is the most basic; if it does not work, then do not worry about other kinds of arguments.

CT

 

[MW]

It seems that Rev. Winzer is saying something similar to Kant saying that the Ontological argument is the most basic; if it does not work, then do not worry about other kinds of arguments.

Sort of. I just think it is dishonest to speak of human rationality making ultimate truth claims when ultimate truth itself cannot be proven to exist without an Ultimate Rationality to verify it. Why should anyone care what human reason proves? Who died and made Reason king? Without the God of truth reason is nothing more than a chemical soup discharging an electric flash.