Presuppostionalism "Eventually bogs down?"

Status
Not open for further replies.

jwright82

Puritan Board Graduate
If it's merely methodological than it just a method and it doesn't matter. Others have used different methodology to describe his thinking.
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Amanuensis
Would you agree it was methodological in nature, his use of post Kantian philosophy? And I only brought up Barth as an example.

I wouldn't know exactly what a Kantian method is. He uses Kantian concepts ('limiting term,' 'concrete universal,' 'preconditions of intelligibility). That's not a method. It doesn't mean he was a Kantian, to be fair. I don't think he was. But it did structure how he presented the existence of God. He *had* to talk in terms of precondition of intelligibility.

That's a problem for the guy on the street. He's not going to follow it. Contrast it with the Kalam argument. It's fairly simple to follow.
 

jwright82

Puritan Board Graduate
I wouldn't know exactly what a Kantian method is. He uses Kantian concepts ('limiting term,' 'concrete universal,' 'preconditions of intelligibility). That's not a method. It doesn't mean he was a Kantian, to be fair. I don't think he was. But it did structure how he presented the existence of God. He *had* to talk in terms of precondition of intelligibility.

That's a problem for the guy on the street. He's not going to follow it. Contrast it with the Kalam argument. It's fairly simple to follow.
Sorry, yeah neither would I. I mean pretty much what said. I do think he utilized the structure of their arguments, which would in a sense be methodological.
Yeah some of his lingo is impossible to convey to someone on the street. That's why I've worked very hard to translate his method to people the street.
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Amanuensis
It’s very easy to follow, I just don’t like where it leads.

I just take it as it stands. You can't traverse an actual infinite (George Cantor proved that).

As to my other comment on "methodology," Roderick Chisholm wrote The Problem of the Criterion. He didn't address this question on TAG (since no one outside of Reformed circles is aware of it), but it bears on it. I might develop it later.
 

Taylor Sexton

Puritan Board Senior
As to my other comment on "methodology," Roderick Chisholm wrote The Problem of the Criterion. He didn't address this question on TAG (since no one outside of Reformed circles is aware of it), but it bears on it. I might develop it later.

I would be interested in that.
 

jwright82

Puritan Board Graduate
The problem of the criterion addresses what happens when we demand a particular method prior to knowledge, which turns into justifying the method, but then we would need a justification for the justification, ad infinitum
https://www.iep.utm.edu/criterio/
It seems to me that the problem only arises when we treat the two questions as reffering to the same things. They refer to two different things. In Wittgensteinian language we're mixing language games and getting a confusion. A method is not the same thing as stating a true statement. Therefore they can't have a one to one relation.
Also the whole justifying a justifying statement seems off. Demanding a method prior to knowledge, which I haven't said (that I know of), is not what Vantillians are about it's a method for defending the faith. But another problem here is that a method is empty of content, other than how it works, it is only when you fill it with content that it spits something out.
This self referential quality is exactly how Van Til used the phrase "circular reasoning".
 

jwright82

Puritan Board Graduate
I just take it as it stands. You can't traverse an actual infinite (George Cantor proved that).

As to my other comment on "methodology," Roderick Chisholm wrote The Problem of the Criterion. He didn't address this question on TAG (since no one outside of Reformed circles is aware of it), but it bears on it. I might develop it later.
But they are aware of transcendental arguments.
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Amanuensis
Demanding a method prior to knowledge, which I haven't said (that I know of), is not what Vantillians are about it's a method for defending the faith

I am using "method" loosely, and any time Van Tillians are asking someone to account for how they know things, that is exactly what they are doing.
 

jwright82

Puritan Board Graduate
I am using "method" loosely, and any time Van Tillians are asking someone to account for how they know things, that is exactly what they are doing.
Perhaps the problem could be solved by saying that asking for an account might be, ?, more of a meta epistemological question? Because that would make two different questions. If I ask whether something is right or wrong verses why it's right or wrong seem like two different questions.
 

TomVols

Puritan Board Freshman
I generally don't use the term pressupossiton because there's too much to unpack with that term, I use assumptions.
Practically I try to gently move the conversation to the deeper issues involved and then I get a little more harder with the questions. Like why can they bring in their assumptions (religious, philosophical, scientific, etc.) But I can't? When they cry that they're not doing that I'll try to show them that they are.
The conversation can develop any number of directions from here. That's why I say Van Til gave us a method of doing apologetics first, not so much an argument. But the method can be applied to any situation. So in conclusion they're being just as circular, in the broad sense, as I am and if they can do it so can I. Is that better at answering your questions?
I think there's good wisdom here. I don't know that it escapes the OP. But I have no problem asking people "So your problem is the Bible makes my God out to be a monster, an exclusivist, Correct? But your worldview is exclusivist, also. Have you ever considered how often science gets it wrong? Or how scientists are baffled by the mysterious or miraculous?"

Or for the person who is ok with any and all views: "So all thoughts about God are correct? Nothing is out of bounds? NOTHING?"

I've often wondered if Kreeft didn't accidentally give a shout out to Van Til here. A tiny one.
 

jwright82

Puritan Board Graduate
I think there's good wisdom here. I don't know that it escapes the OP. But I have no problem asking people "So your problem is the Bible makes my God out to be a monster, an exclusivist, Correct? But your worldview is exclusivist, also. Have you ever considered how often science gets it wrong? Or how scientists are baffled by the mysterious or miraculous?"

Or for the person who is ok with any and all views: "So all thoughts about God are correct? Nothing is out of bounds? NOTHING?"

I've often wondered if Kreeft didn't accidentally give a shout out to Van Til here. A tiny one.
Great post. Yeah take them to scripture to show them their assumptions are wrong.
 

jwright82

Puritan Board Graduate
I think there's good wisdom here. I don't know that it escapes the OP. But I have no problem asking people "So your problem is the Bible makes my God out to be a monster, an exclusivist, Correct? But your worldview is exclusivist, also. Have you ever considered how often science gets it wrong? Or how scientists are baffled by the mysterious or miraculous?"

Or for the person who is ok with any and all views: "So all thoughts about God are correct? Nothing is out of bounds? NOTHING?"

I've often wondered if Kreeft didn't accidentally give a shout out to Van Til here. A tiny one.
I think that I'm not understanding the OP then. I don't see how scripture "bogs" anything down? To have debate about the bible involves the bible, what it says etc. You can't do anything else. Maybe phrase the question more specifically so I can answer. Thanks, nice discussion though.
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Amanuensis
That makes more sense. But why should we presups not use evidences?

No one says you can't, but when you do that you will have to evaluate the evidences and not use arguments like, "Well, on my worldview it isn't a problem." I've heard Doug Wilson say that in debates.
 

jwright82

Puritan Board Graduate
No one says you can't, but when you do that you will have to evaluate the evidences and not use arguments like, "Well, on my worldview it isn't a problem." I've heard Doug Wilson say that in debates.
Ok but a proper way to use worldview and evidences is to examine the context (worldview) that the evidences are being examined by. A naturalist might agree that Christ rose from the grave but that it was a freak accident and nothing more. There are no uniterpreted facts.
 
Last edited:

jwright82

Puritan Board Graduate
No one says you can't, but when you do that you will have to evaluate the evidences and not use arguments like, "Well, on my worldview it isn't a problem." I've heard Doug Wilson say that in debates.
Perhaps Doug Wilson is not aquainted with the evidence. Plus I don't know the context of when he said it. I'm not his biggest fan.
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Amanuensis
Ok but a proper way to use worldview and evidences is to examine the context (worldview) that the evidences are being examined by. A naturalist might agree that Christ rose from the grave but that it was a freak accident and nothing more. There are no preinterpretid facts.

I am familiar with the Van Tillian talking points. That's not what the issue would be. Even evidentialists believe that evidences must be in context. We are talking about perceived contradictions et al, not on hypotheticals whether Christ could rise from the dead on naturalistic accounts.
 

jwright82

Puritan Board Graduate
I am familiar with the Van Tillian talking points. That's not what the issue would be. Even evidentialists believe that evidences must be in context. We are talking about perceived contradictions et al, not on hypotheticals whether Christ could rise from the dead on naturalistic accounts.
Im not sure i understand what contradictions you're reffering to? I hope I'm not simply giving "talking points" but clarification. My hypothetical was an example to clarify what I'm saying. I post not only for the person I'm talking to but anyone's edification.
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Amanuensis
Im not sure i understand what contradictions you're reffering to? I hope I'm not simply giving "talking points" but clarification. My hypothetical was an example to clarify what I'm saying. I post not only for the person I'm talking to but anyone's edification.

Of course I don't believe there are actual contradictions. I'm simply guessing what unbelievers usually say
 

jwright82

Puritan Board Graduate
I see. We were talking past each other. I disagree with presup but I can't think of any actual contradictions in it.
Sounds good. As always a pleasure talking with you. I like talking with you, even if I think you're wrong I still have to think about it. And sometimes I'm wrong and you point that out for me, iron sharpening iron.
 

Henry Hall

Puritan Board Freshman
I think what he is getting at is that would involve evidences (e.g., resolving bible contradictions, archealogy, etc) than worldview commitments.
For the unbeliever even to open his mouth with a mind to challenging the Christian with respect to resolving bible contradictions, archealogy, etc, he should be ready to warrant his use of language, and ultimately his use of induction.
If he can't, as Wittgenstein would say, "Of what he cannot speak, keep silent."
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Amanuensis
For the unbeliever even to open his mouth with a mind to challenging the Christian with respect to resolving bible contradictions, archealogy, etc, he should be ready to warrant his use of language, and ultimately his use of induction.
If he can't, as Wittgenstein would say, "Of what he cannot speak, keep silent."

That's the kind of response I was talking about. Ironically, for presups to talk about the Bible a lot, this is an example of not going to it. Why not just answer the question about the Bible?
 
Last edited:

Taylor Sexton

Puritan Board Senior
That's the kind of response I was talking about. Ironically, for presups to talk about the Bible a lot, this is an example of not going to it. Why not just answer the question about the Bible?

I'm confused. Are you objecting to this because of the method or because of the tone?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top