Jeff Lowder recently wrote a post asking how seriously presuppositionalism should be taken.
Jim Lazarus wrote a blog entry asking the same question. He answered in the affirmative, or, at least as seriously as other approaches to apologetics are taken.
Here's my answer: No, don't take it seriously.
Why?
Well, here's a few reasons:
1. The internet infidels has a newsletter relaying Stein's comments on his debate with Greg Bahnsen. It's reported that:
"Gordon Stein concedes that Greg Bahnsen was able to catch him off-guard with TAG (although Stein says he now has a refutation of the argument);..."
2. Further, Edward Tabash didn't take the debate between him and Bahnsen seriously - he doesn't distribute those tapes.
So, yes, don't take presuppositionalism seriously. Then there will always be an excuse after the debate doesn't go your way.
3. Dan Barker didn't take me seriously, but most people, including atheists, don't think the debate turned out so well for him.
4. Someone posted a comment on Lowder's blog where he said that our arguments are "silly" and "nonsense." We like that attitude because then if the debate doesn't turn out so well for the atheist he gets beat by someone who had "silly" and "nonsensical" arguments. (Also, we were never told what was "silly" and "nonsense," and so it looks like not taking us seriously leads one to make unfounded assertions like these!)
5. Lowder seems to equate the method of presuppositionalism with the transcendental argument. As long as presuppositionalism is not taken seriously, then mistakes like this will continue to be made. That only helps us.
6. Please, don't take us seriously, this way you'll have an excuse for attacking straw men like Michael Martin does in TANG (e.g., his claim that miracles are violates of natural laws, and his view that Christianity teaches voluntarism, his ignorance of covenant theology).
7. Apropos (6), presuppositionalism is tied in with reformed systematic theology. To the extent you don't take one seriously, you won't take the other seriously. This leads to non-Christians attacking straw men.
8. So, don't take us seriously, please. Ignoring us only helps us, and since we're theists, we need all the help we can get!
Are you serious? J/K.
ReplyDeleteWow, what a neat article. I think its impressive when you with the collective "us" statements.
ReplyDeleteHere come the atheists!!! They all are being so convinced by the presupp arguments!!! On your knees atheists!
Oh wait...only god can convert those poor saps...and playing the presupper is just mental whacking off for the 'hard hitting' apologists like Paul Manata.
Paul said: Presuppositionalism is tied in with reformed systematic theology.
ReplyDeleteVytautas says: You raise an intereseting point.
Boy, I sure do love anonymous comments.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, as I said in the post, I think that presuppositionalism, when approached in the right way, using the right arguments, deserves more credit and consideration than the standard evidential arguments. I didn't argue for why in the paper. But I'll just give my own personal take on this, briefly, here.
In my opinion, standard cosmological and design arguments have very little going for them. There is some interesting work from Alex Pruss and Richard Gale that may show differently about the cosmological argument, but the Gale-Pruss argument is hardly a "standard" cosmo argument.
On the other hand, Reppert's argument from reason and Plantinga's EAAN are interesting arguments, and, in my never so humble opinion, deserve some serious consideration (as Plantinga received in "Naturalism Defeated?, by Kvanvig").
Likewise, there are some moral arguments that are better than others, and some theologically based ethical theories that are more respectable than others, and so on the assumption that a presuppositionalist would choose to use the better ones, presuppositionalism would deserve to be taken seriously.
I don't think I can put too much stock in *the* Transcendental Argument as it treats logic, but after discussing Goodman's Paradox with you, Paul, I think that there is something respectable to be said about a theistic picture of the world helping us to overcome inductive skepticism.
So what this boils down to is that the arguments that I regard as the most respectable are those that are either a part of, or can be accepted by, presuppositional approaches to apologetics, whereas the arguments that I give lesser credence to are typical of standard evidentialist approaches to apologetics.
- Jim
Jim, that was a naughty thing for you to say. Didn't you read what anonymouse said?
ReplyDeleteJim Laz,
ReplyDeleteYOu are a very different kind of Atheist...
IN CHRIST,
Jimmy LI
too bad that Jim Laz is going to burn forever.
ReplyDeleteIt seems obvious that the objectivity, metaphysical necessity and universality (OMNU) of logic/morality/etc. are the crux of any argument that they can give, and this "support" only works against someone who denies these things. They believe that, since God is by fiat OMNU, and since these things are, they can just say, "Aha!"
ReplyDeleteThis still doesn't get to the heart of necessity vs. contingency -- ie logical laws apply in all possible worlds, but can we say that God had to have the specific nature that God has? If so, is God OMNU, or is God's nature contingent upon these other OMNUs, which just pushes the problem back a step further.
If not so, then how does the theist argue this? By fiat. By assertion.
If someone agrees with them about OMNU status of these things, and simply says, "Give me the evidence that a God is either necessary or sufficient in your explanation for these things," then we have a real debate, and a real conversation.
I have yet to see a single theist even try to engage this. James Anderson definitely doesn't in his paper.
The only thing that PS has done is cause physicalists to realize the OMNU entities require an expanded metaphysics/ontology.