Presuppostionalism "Eventually bogs down?"

Discussion in 'Apologetical Methods' started by TomVols, Aug 19, 2019.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. jwright82

    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.
     
  2. BayouHuguenot

    BayouHuguenot Puritanboard Amanuensis

    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.
     
  3. jwright82

    jwright82 Puritan Board Graduate

    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.
     
  4. jwright82

    jwright82 Puritan Board Graduate

    It is possible to translate it though, I have.
     
  5. Henry Hall

    Henry Hall Puritan Board Freshman

    I have not. Thanks for the tip.
     
  6. Taylor Sexton

    Taylor Sexton Puritan Board Junior

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

    BayouHuguenot Puritanboard Amanuensis

    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.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • List
  8. Taylor Sexton

    Taylor Sexton Puritan Board Junior

    I would be interested in that.
     
  9. BayouHuguenot

    BayouHuguenot Puritanboard Amanuensis

    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/
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • List
  10. jwright82

    jwright82 Puritan Board Graduate

    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".
     
  11. jwright82

    jwright82 Puritan Board Graduate

    But they are aware of transcendental arguments.
     
  12. BayouHuguenot

    BayouHuguenot Puritanboard Amanuensis

    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.
     
  13. jwright82

    jwright82 Puritan Board Graduate

    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.
     
  14. TomVols

    TomVols Puritan Board Freshman

    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.
     
  15. jwright82

    jwright82 Puritan Board Graduate

    Great post. Yeah take them to scripture to show them their assumptions are wrong.
     
  16. jwright82

    jwright82 Puritan Board Graduate

    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.
     
  17. BayouHuguenot

    BayouHuguenot Puritanboard Amanuensis

    I think what he is getting at is that would involve evidences (e.g., resolving bible contradictions, archealogy, etc) than worldview commitments.
     
  18. jwright82

    jwright82 Puritan Board Graduate

    That makes more sense. But why should we presups not use evidences?
     
  19. BayouHuguenot

    BayouHuguenot Puritanboard Amanuensis

    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.
     
  20. jwright82

    jwright82 Puritan Board Graduate

    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: Aug 29, 2019
  21. jwright82

    jwright82 Puritan Board Graduate

    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.
     
  22. BayouHuguenot

    BayouHuguenot Puritanboard Amanuensis

    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.
     
  23. jwright82

    jwright82 Puritan Board Graduate

    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.
     
  24. BayouHuguenot

    BayouHuguenot Puritanboard Amanuensis

    Of course I don't believe there are actual contradictions. I'm simply guessing what unbelievers usually say
     
  25. jwright82

    jwright82 Puritan Board Graduate

    I thought you meant contradictions in pressupossitonalism. Sorry.
     
  26. BayouHuguenot

    BayouHuguenot Puritanboard Amanuensis

    I see. We were talking past each other. I disagree with presup but I can't think of any actual contradictions in it.
     
  27. jwright82

    jwright82 Puritan Board Graduate

    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.
     
  28. Henry Hall

    Henry Hall Puritan Board Freshman

    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."
     
  29. BayouHuguenot

    BayouHuguenot Puritanboard Amanuensis

    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: Aug 29, 2019
  30. Taylor Sexton

    Taylor Sexton Puritan Board Junior

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

Share This Page