Evidentialist and Presuppositionalist

[C. Matthew McMahon]

What do you think is the main difference between an evidential system of apologetics and a presuppositional system of apologetics?

Not whether they are right or wrong, but how you would define them...

 

[Arch2k]

The shorthand version:

Evidentialism appeals to the creation to "prove" the creator.

Presuppositionalism appeals to the highest authority there is, the creator, God himself.

Hebrews 6:13
For when God made a promise to Abraham, because He could swear by no one greater, He swore by Himself.

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

also, while I'm thinking about it - why would someone 1) accept evidentialism as a good apologetic, or 2) why would someone reject it?

 

[RamistThomist]

Originally posted by webmaster
also, while I'm thinking about it - why would someone 1) accept evidentialism as a good apologetic, or 2) why would someone reject it?

Because evidentialism (ala Montgomery, William Craig) claim a neutral ground appealing to the facts. They say, "well, the facts speak for themselves."

The presuppositionalist would answer that all facts are created and already interpeted by God. Hence, they are covenantally related. Facts do not speak for themselves, so the presupp reasons, nor do they provide a criterion for truth. Sinful man will intepret the facts according to his deprave mindset. Secondly, evidentialism by definition, since it appeals to probabiliity, can never give certainty on the Christian faith.

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

Would you say then, the facts (brute or otherwise) don't speak for themselves? Its sounds Clarkian. In other words, if we appeal to the Creator for His Interpretation, then we are appealing analogically to what we understand after Him, but why does that mean that practially the atheist woudl not know the same facts that the presup knows about a tree? Practically, can he know or not know? I'm not askign whether he gives "meaning" to the tree, but whether he knows the tree is there analogically, as well as if god knows the tree is there.

Can the evidence be skewed?

 

[RamistThomist]

As I understand it, I am pressing for the "re-interpretation" of the already theos-interpreted facts. The atheistic scientist refuses to see the fact within the framework of God's revelation.

Practically, the atheist sees the same tree I do, but does he give the same meaning to the tree? That is the issue in question.

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Although this quote typically is understood to have reference to science, I think it is relevant to the topic at hand and I think it is consistent with presuppositional apologetics.

I am merely striving to think God's thoughts after Him. -- Johann Kepler

 

[toddpedlar]

Originally posted by webmaster

Can the evidence be skewed?

The evidence is never skewed.... though the interpretation can be. When looking at a Picasso, everyone sees the same painting before them - but all have different interpretations. The paint isn't different for these different observers, but some see things that others don't.

To be more directly analogous... suppose there's some fascinating Picasso painting that is painted with some colors that look black unless you are able to see ultraviolet. No matter how hard a normally-seeing person looks at that Picasso, he will not agree that the black areas are anything but black. For those whose ultraviolet-sight has been turned on (externally, say, by God), they see a broad array of colors in the areas in which "normal" people see only black.

Evidence speaks for itself, yes. Do you have ears to hear what it's truly saying? That's the question.

Todd