INTRODUCTION
Both pop-evangelical culture and the skeptical internet community are discussing the recent debate held between participants Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron versus “Kelly” and “Brian Sapient” of the Rational Response Squad. As of today (5-12-07), no comments have been offered regarding the debate from the ministry of Comfort and Cameron, but the Rational Responders have proclaimed that they believe themselves have been victorious over Christian Theism. We will get to the issue of their supposed “victory” in light of Comfort and Cameron’s performance later in this series, but it is more imperative that we first begin by turning our attention to something that Cameron and Comfort said before the debate,
"Perhaps you think that anyone who says he can prove the existence of God is a dreamer . . . we can prove that God exists, scientifically, absolutely, without mentioning faith or even the Bible,” said Comfort and Cameron. “Do you find that hard to believe? Then watch the debate.”
I already commented on this statement two weeks before the debate occurred and so what is said here will be somewhat re-worked material with the necessary post-debate commentary and observations. It is important at the outset of this critique to provide a disclaimer stating that I have no personal angst against Ray Comfort, Kirk Cameron, and The Way of the Master ministries. Instead, I and others in our church body have benefited from their respective ministries in the past and truly appreciate their efforts at building the
I. Examining a Proposed and Flawed Apologetic Methodology
Problem # 1: We do not prove the existence of the God of Christianity by first giving up Christianity.
Again, let me review what Comfort and Cameron have said,
"Perhaps you think that anyone who says he can prove the existence of God is a dreamer . . . we can prove that God exists, scientifically, absolutely, without mentioning faith or even the Bible,” said Comfort and Cameron . . . .” [1] [Bolded emphasis mine]
For Comfort and Cameron to declare that they intended to employ this type of apologetic method is irreverent, dishonoring to Christ and is downright sinful. Greg Bahnsen rightly said,
“Neutrality in scholarship, apologetics, or schooling is both impossible and immoral. No man can serve two masters, and thus one must choose to ground his intellectual efforts in Christ or in his own autonomous reason; there is no middle ground between these two authorities. Neutrality would erase the distinctiveness of the Christian position and muffle the antithesis between godly and ungodly thinking. A Christian who strives to be neutral not only denies the Lordship of Christ in knowledge and loses his solid ground in reasoning, he also unwittingly endorses assumptions which are hostile to his faith.”[2]
- As mentioned with Dr. Bahnsen’s comment above, the apologetic methodology Comfort and Cameron employed is sinful because (1) it assumes that unbelievers have the ability to correctly examine, interpret, and come to the proper conclusions about hard evidence apart from special revelation, thus giving heed to their sinful autonomy versus calling them to repentance for it. (2) They verbally announced that they would defend the existence of “God” without any mention of “faith or even the Bible”,[3] and as a result, one of the traditional arguments that they sought to use (i.e., the teleological argument per the “Portrait assumes a painter” argument by Comfort) actually backfired on them somewhat as seen in Sapient’s rebuttal period. The classical arguments for the existence of God, in their traditional form, do not defend the existence of the Christian God but only an extremely nebulous concept of a “god” that could just as well be Zoroaster, Zeus, Allah, or one of the infinite numbers of supposed gods presupposed by the theosis doctrine of Mormonism. Worse yet, this “god” wouldn’t have to necessarily be theistic, especially since Comfort and Cameron would not have been able to make any reference to their “faith”, had they adhered to their original debate challenge. Such a god(s) could merely be super-intelligent extraterrestrials that created advanced life and seeded the planet earth in the distant past. As a result, had they adhered to a purely evidential-scientific apologetic approach in this debate (which they did not) they would have willingly avoided (per their own words) doing the very thing that they as Christians are commanded to do, namely, to “earnestly contend for the faith (versus giving it up) once for all handed down to the saints” (Jude 3), and “sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts”. However, as Cornelius Van Til has noted, the defense of the Christian worldview must necessarily have as its foundation the self-attesting Christ of Scripture. There is simply no other way of appropriately and biblically providing a rationale for the hope that abides in you (Col. 2:3; 1 Peter 3:15).
There was much ado in this debate about appealing to general revelation to prove the existence of God, (i.e., where there is a painting there must be a painter), but such a generic and non-specific approach fails both biblically and philosophically.
- Biblically: General revelation (as per Romans 1) does not prove the existence of some nebulous concept of a god, but proves that the ton theon (“the God” cf. Rom. 1:21 in Greek) of Scripture exists and that the unbeliever already intuitively knows that He exists and thus needs no “proving” as it were:
Romans 1:19-21 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened..
Paul says that the creation reveals God’s existence, eternal power, and divine nature, and wrath against suppressors of said truth (Romans 1:18-20). His primary point in Romans 1 is not that unbelievers are ignorant of God’s existence and simply need to be educated via the traditional proofs and historical evidences, but that unbelievers do already in fact know about God and will intuitively recognize His creative power in nature. However, as God-haters, they will sinfully suppress the truth and knowledge that they already have about Him and as a result, they will be judged for it, regardless of their lack of special revelation. Of course, general revelation does not show man the way of salvation, the Trinitarian nature of God, and other necessary doctrinal truths, but it does show the Christian that every unbeliever has enough knowledge to damn him, but not always enough to save him, hence the need for missionaries (Rom. 10:14-17).
And so, Paul’s commentary in Romans 1:18-22 shows that all unbelievers know intuitively that God exists and that this knowledge is sufficient in and of itself to condemn them to hell. The knowledge that they possess intuitively consists in His wondrous power in creation and their moral responsibility to Him (Rom. 1:19-21). The strange theories that they concoct about the origin of the universe and man serves as further corroborating evidence that they are truth suppressors hell-bent on escaping their own moral culpability (Rom. 1:22-23). Comfort and Cameron already know this and have spoken and written about it. However, for them to proposition for a debate by giving the atheist the very thing that the word of God denies him (namely, autonomous neutrality) is to deny what Paul clearly teaches about unbelievers as outlined in Romans chapter 1.
In part II, I will provide some helpful, constructive criticism regarding the debate proper, so that we can learn how not to do apologetics.
Clearly Romans 1 points to the supression of the true God. However, since General Revelation does not reveal the Triune God, in what ways do we understand GR revealing the the Triune God so that the unbeliever is not left to think he is supressing some other spurious concept of God?
ReplyDeleteI should clarify my comment. I meant GR does not reveal the true God as Triune (only Special Revelation does). So in what way can we be certain that the unbeliever is supressing the knowledge of the true God if He is not revealed in GR as Triune? In other words, what evidence does creation supply to answer this question? Could God's invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature be naively attributed to a concept of God that cannot be identified as the Triune God by the unbeliever? This is not a trick question. I am trying to grapple with its implications for the apologetic task.
ReplyDeleteHere you go calvdispy: http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/Ted_Hildebrandt/NTeSources/NTArticles/GTJ-NT/Turner-Rom1-GTJ-81.pdf
ReplyDeleteNote also here (http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/pa207.htm), wherein Bahnsen said,
ReplyDelete"The sense of deity discussed by Calvin on the basis of Paul's doctrine in Romans 1 provides Van Til not only with an apologetical point of contact, but also with an account of how those who disclaim any belief in God can know much about most subjects.[23]
The knowledge of God which every man has as the image of God and as surrounded by God's clear revelation assures us, then, that all men are in contact with the truth.[24] Not even sin in its most devastating expressions can remove this knowledge, for Van Til says "sin would not be sin except for this ineradicable knowledge of God."[25] It is this knowledge of God, of which Paul speaks in Romans 1, that Van Til identifies as the knowledge which all men have in common, contending that such common knowledge is the guarantee that every man can contribute to the progress of science, and that some measure of unity in that task can exist between believers and unbelievers.[26]
Because he is convinced that self-consciousness presupposes God-consciousness,[27] the presuppositionalist can assert then, in the most important sense, "There are no atheists."[28] Van Til clearly relies very heavily on Paul in making such a surprising claim.
The apostle Paul speaks of the natural man as actually possessing the knowledge of God (Rom. 1:19-21). The greatness of his sin lies precisely in the fact that "when they knew God, they glorified him not as God." No man can escape knowing God. It is indelibly involved in his awareness of anything whatsoever.... We have at once to add Paul's further instruction to the effect that all men, due to the sin within them, always and in all relationships seek to "suppress" this knowledge of God (Rom. 1:18).... Deep down in his mind every man knows that he is the creature of God and responsible to God. Every man, at bottom, knows that he is a covenant breaker. But every man acts and talks as though this were not so. It is the one point that cannot bear mentioning in his presence.[29]
Van Til speaks of the unbeliever sinning against his "better knowledge" - that "it is of the greatest possible importance" to acknowledge that man knows God in some "original sense."[30]"
Dusman, I don't quite understand the point of your post. Are you saying that anyone who doesn't use presuppositional apolegetics is "living in sin"?
ReplyDeleteI don't see anything wrong with what Comfort and Cameron did in the debate. They used the argument from design (which the Bible also uses) and they also gave a presentation of the Gospel. The argument from a design is a very simple and effective argument which points people towards the existence of the Christian God... which is good. And the large television audience got to see the atheists losing their tempers, and making wacky claims about Jesus not existing, which is also good. I think Cameron and Comfort may have been a bit out of their depth, but I don't think it was a 'waste of time' at all.
My question is: Can't you see *anything* positive with what they've done?
Regards,
As of today (5-12-07), no comments have been offered regarding the debate from the ministry of Comfort and Cameron...
ReplyDeleteNot so.
Not having ever debated presuppositionalism (that I can recall) it seems transparent to me that presuppositionalism is an irrational methodology. But perhaps it is my ignorance that makes me say that. Would someone like to try and enlighten me? I'll get the ball rolling with a couple of questions.
ReplyDeleteIn every other area of knowledge when a claim is made evidence is demanded. For any controversial claim, if I make the claim you demand evidence. If I tell you that life exists on Mars you would demand to know what evidence supports that claim. If I tell you that II Peter was written in the second century you demand to know what evidence can support that claim. The same is true in science. If I tell you that monkeys and men have a common ancestor you want to know what evidence can support that claim. If there is none, then you do not accept my assertion.
Cameron and Comfort assume that what is true for religious knowledge is also true for every other form of knowledge. Why isn't that reasonable?
And I don't understand the basis for the claims PS-ers make. They say only God can account for the laws of logic. But how do they know this? There is nothing else that can account for logic? Nothing at all? Why would you assume you are so smart as to exhaust every possible alternative explanation for the laws of logic.
And even if I were to grant that God is necessary for logic, would that mean also that Christianity is true? I understand that PS-ers focus on internal contradictions in other faiths, and this shows them to be false, but even if I were to grant that other faiths are false, would this make Christianity true?
I understand these are basic questions, but like I said I've never been through this with a PS-er, so I'd like to see how you would respond.
anonymous,
ReplyDeleteTo *willingly* enter into the debate arena attempting to defend Christianity by giving up Christianity is not only immoral and irrational. The atheist doesn't give up his presuppositions to defend his presuppostions and we shouldn't do so either. I'm not alone in my opinion here per the Bahnsen quote in my post. Ray and Kirk probably don't realize that they are doing this, which is why I provided the post and have e-mailed it to their ministry so as to encourage, edify, and strengthen their ministry.
As to anything positive in their apologetic attempt in this debate, I think they did poorly, as do other reformed bloggers:
http://stevenjcamp.blogspot.com/2007/05/way-of-disaster-when-debating-atheists.html
However, I truly appreciate Kirk's testimony and Ray's use of the law. So, as a good calvinist, I believe in spite of their poor apologetic, that God can still strike a straight blow with a crooked stick.
But perhaps it is my ignorance that makes me say that.
ReplyDeleteIndeed. Read more here: http://www.vantil.info/
In every other area of knowledge when a claim is made evidence is demanded.
Sometimes that is sufficient. But when debating those who do not accept the Christian evidences de facto an internal critique of actual worldviews is necessary to determine if said worldviews provide the sufficient preconditions for the evaluation of evidence in the first place. In other words, the classical use of evidence follows a probabalistic reasoning method through inductive reasoning, whereas presuppositionalism often reasons transcendentally (i.e., what has to exist in order for an argument to get off the ground in the first place).
Cameron and Comfort assume that what is true for religious knowledge is also true for every other form of knowledge. Why isn't that reasonable?
Because religious knowledge is always interpreted through an already pre-existing grid called one's worldview. They failed to take that fully into consideration but instead seemed to approach this event as if it was merely another street preaching venue.
They say only God can account for the laws of logic. But how do they know this?
Because God told them in His word.
There is nothing else that can account for logic? Nothing at all? Why would you assume you are so smart as to exhaust every possible alternative explanation for the laws of logic.
Nope, you cannot account for logic apart from the Triune God without cutting your own throat philosophically speaking. To say that logic and reason has a naturalistic explanation is to (1) deny the Lord of logic and reason, and (2) creates a rational/irrational dialectical tension [more on this in part II of this series].
And even if I were to grant that God is necessary for logic, would that mean also that Christianity is true?
Assuming you are saying that the Christian God is the sufficient precondition for logic and reason, then yes. This would be because all other actual and contrary worldview do not provide said preconditions without internally self-destructing.
I understand that PS-ers focus on internal contradictions in other faiths, and this shows them to be false, but even if I were to grant that other faiths are false, would this make Christianity true?
Not necessarily. From a philosophical standpoint, Christianity is only *sufficiently* true from (1) the impossibility of the contrary of other *actual* (vs. hypothetical) worldviews and (2) to admit that this is the case causes one to deny his atheism in order to defend his atheism. So, you'd have a defeater for atheism since it couldn't stand on its own merits but instead must argue against Christianity via apealing to contrary worldviews that are unlike his own atheistic worldview. So, anywhoo, he's a got a nasty defeater for his position.
But when debating those who do not accept the Christian evidences de facto an internal critique of actual worldviews is necessary to determine if said worldviews provide the sufficient preconditions for the evaluation of evidence in the first place.
ReplyDeleteWhy is that? That's not true in other areas of knowledge.
In other areas of knowledge, arguments basically start from shared beliefs. Take a claim about nutrition just as an example. Suppose someone claims that eating honey raises blood sugar. As proof they offer expiramental studies. They have 100 people consume honey and they measure their blood sugar before and after.
That is sufficient to persuade most people. But what it seems to me that in this analogy you would dispute all of the pre-conditions. You'd say to the claimants "Why should we accept blood sugar tests as accurate?" Maybe the claimants don't understand how blood sugar tests function. They would say they don't know how it works, but these things are well understood and accepted by everybody, so they're not going to bother proving it to you and they regard their claim as demonstrated.
The point being that arguments start from shared values. Maybe I don't know how to justify the laws of reasoning, but we both accept them regardless. In every other area of study and proof we just start from shared assumptions and apply those assumptions to learn new things. Why is that OK in every area of knowledge except religion?
Jon-They say only God can account for the laws of logic. But how do they know this?
Dunsman-Because God told them in His word.
This is of course transparently circular, and I assume you know that. In any other area of knowledge (science, geology, history) circular reasoning is not considered justification for a claim. What makes it different in this case?
Nope, you cannot account for logic apart from the Triune God without cutting your own throat philosophically speaking.
What of a person that doesn't even try to account for the laws of logic? Why can't he apply them anyway?
Suppose you lived 5000 years ago and you found out that objects accelerate toward the earth at a constant rate (gravity). Suppose you had no way of accounting for gravity. Maybe little gremlins are pulling things down. Maybe there is some other explanation. You don't know. Does this mean you can't use knowledge of this force to achieve various goals (for instance driving a turbine blade with a waterfall, or opening an egg by dropping it from a short distance)? It seems obvious that you can still use gravity even if you can't account for it. In the same way you can still use logic even if you can't account for it. Why not?
This would be because all other actual and contrary worldview do not provide said preconditions without internally self-destructing.
That again is a pretty exhaustive claim that would be hard to justify. No other worldview can account for logic without self-destructing? There is no other possible way to account for the laws of reasoning? How can you be so sure of such an exhaustive claim.
the impossibility of the contrary of other *actual* (vs. hypothetical) worldviews and
What about hypothetical worldviews? When you say that there is no other way to account for the laws of logic without the Tri-une God you are saying that ALL other worldviews, including options that have never even been considered, are false. Doesn't this oblige you to prove that even hypothetical alternatives are false as well?
For my case I'm not actually an atheist. At this point I consider myself more of an agnostic. There could be a God and perhaps he does ground the laws of logic. I'm happy to grant that point to you and then proceed to use the laws of logic to show that Christianity is false. This would mean that God is not the Christian God, but must be some other God. In my case, since I would grant for the sake of argument that God is the ground of logic (though I'm not sure I actually believe that), wouldn't you have to then proceed with a Cameron/Comfort approach and start persuading me with evidence that Christianity is true?
Seems that Mr. Curry is commiting the ol' "Crackers in the Pantry" fallacy!
ReplyDelete>>In any other area of knowledge (science, geology, history) circular reasoning is not considered justification for a claim. What makes it different in this case?
ReplyDeleteNot every circular argument is false. Atheists assume, for example, philosophical naturalism in their atheism. "Science" is a very vague term. Atheists and some agnostics regularly argue that science must assume philosophical naturalism, so it simply is not true that "circular reasoning is not considered a justification for a claim" in all the sciences. You also assume that the law of non-contradiction is true. There are certain unargued claims lying back of what you believe.
>>What of a person that doesn't even try to account for the laws of logic? Why can't he apply them anyway?
How does philosophical naturalism account for the law of non-contradiction? You assume it exists and you assume it is true every time you engage in an argument. Physicalism can't account for it, yet an atheist is bound to it. Where in nature can you observe the laws of logic? In what part of your brain are they found? So the atheist's worldview is borrowing capital from theism when he uses logic. Logic is extramental, an abstraction.
I would also add here, Jon, that presuppositionalism does not exclude evidentialism or what some might call traditional apologetics. Rather, it looks behind evidentialism. What gives the laws of logic or concepts of morality their binding force or, put another way, our sense of obligation to them? Evidences, you see, are filtered through a "grid." Presuppositionalism seeks to get behind that grid, or, put another way, get the atheist to examine that grid.
Ugh. Really, this is more disastrous than Cameron and Comfort at their worst.
ReplyDelete(And let me say, contrary to popular assessments I've read on Christian blogs, that Kirk Cameron gave a high quality testimony and acquited himself well in the show that way. I don't think anyone expected that a "break for Kirk's testimony" was part of the agenda, but except for it being off topic possibly, it was well delivered. Comfort should put down the props and "proofs" before he hurts himself, though, and stick to street preaching.)
Got to run to catch a plane, but the van Tillian strategy being pushed here would simply push Comfort/Cameron -- or anyone else who supposes that kind of presuppositionalism will pass muster in a debate, well you might as well be Kirk Cameron proving the designer with a banana.
I do think presuppositionalism is useful, but only as a means of graceful refusing debate. That's all it is good for is to say: I can't play on your ballfield, guys, my "truth" only works if I get to write the rules. There may be a good place for that, and I would say if one is convinced that to debate and to apply reason and logic and evidence one must first accept Christ, then withdrawing from debates up front is probably a good strategy. Presuppositionalism is self-correcting in that sense.
Dusman says:
To *willingly* enter into the debate arena attempting to defend Christianity by giving up Christianity is not only immoral and irrational. The atheist doesn't give up his presuppositions to defend his presuppostions and we shouldn't do so either.
This is either a mistake or a bit of leger de main here. When I enter a debate, I don't have to surrender my beliefs to engage in a debate, to operate under the rules of a debate. If I am a defendent in a court of law, I'm not confessing by my guilt by engaging in the proceedings, proceedins which operate from an intial assumption of agnosticism. The outcome could go either way, for me or against me. My participation in such a process in no way violates my own beliefs. It is simply a framework for proceeding with inquiry.
So, too, engaging in a debate with an atheist doesn't require a Christian to surrender *any* of his beliefs, his presuppositions, his worldview. She can maintain them, intact throughout the proceedings and after -- the debate is powerless to change that, unless the participant consents to the change.
So, as stated, it's just plainly wrong. I don't have to give up my Christian worldview to engage in a discussion with an atheist on this question or that. I may not believe that the accepted method of inquiry, the support of claims with empirical resources and evidences leaves me in an advantageous position, but my faith, my beliefs, my principles can and do stay intact throughout.
And really, that's what presuppositionalism in the mode of van Til is about : intellectual capitulation. A strategy built on the belief that empiricism and rational inquiry will ultimate wither and destroy Christianity. Hence the recommendation that any dialog takes place on the safe assumptions that Christianity supplies -- a "kangaroo court" as it were, bound to inevitably lead to preset Christian conclusions that necessarily precede from the starting presumptions. Calling it "inquiry" becomes a bit of a euphemism at that point.
That's a shame, as that makes Christianity out to be the sniveling little weakling in the corner who can't defend himself unless he has all the weapons and his opponent in chains and shackles. With it rigged, Christianity can't compete on an intellectual level, or that's what's projected to non-believers (ask 'em if you don't believe me).
Again, you're better off with a banana in your hand.
Or maybe just saying that as a presup, you're obliged to stay off the empirical and evidentiary playing field. That isn't great, but it's intellectually honest.
-Touchstone
I disagree with 90% of what Touchstone says on this blog, but I think his 'psychoanalysis' of Van Tillian apologetics is on to something. The Van Tillian claim that arguing-with-atheists-without-using-a-transcendental-argument is sinful is bewildering to me. Are presups too afraid to debate the atheists on their own terms? Are they afraid that the 'intellegentsia' will laugh at them, as Touchstone does to Steve's gorilla argument, if they try the evidential approach? Is William Lane Craig really just 'wasting his time', or are presuppers afraid to take the flak he does from 'free-thinkers'?
ReplyDeleteVan Tillians also attempt to read preuppositionalism back into past church theologians, when it's just not there. Justin Martyr and other early apologists were all evidentialists. Calvin himself begins his Institutes with some evidential arguments.
Also in the link you provided, it said that Romans 1 'certainly' wasn't talking about a cosmological argument. However, isn't a cosmological argument simply putting down in words one of the most primal thoughts we have about the world around us.
"I exist. I'm not eternal. Nothing I see is eternal. There must be something I can't see that exists independently to create the creation" The cosmological argument is not a complex argument at all, even a child knows that things need creating, and even a child knows that God doesn't need a creator, because he's God. And thats already the cosmological argument. And atheists can try to circumvent it with fancy words, but deep down they know it's true. Same with the painting-painter argument. Simple, effective, obvious and it leaves you without excuse if you claim it doesn't prove the "God of Christian theism". Because actually yes, it does.
Reading here never fails to make me wonder,
ReplyDeleteTo Anonymous,
Presup are not against evidence...Have you even read Van Til?
Jimmi Li,
ReplyDeleteI would call myself a presup myself actually. But I don't see what's wrong with what Comfort and Cameron were doing.
Ah, there's nothing like the irony of reading T-Stone complain, yet again, about the T-Blog (I wonder why he even bothers to come here). T-Stone's position apparently is, "Whatever subjective arguments people use are fine; but anyone who would deign to use objective arguments is worse than pond scum! And WOE to the person who would dare critique someone's subjective opinion! Why, that would make them T-Bloggers!!!"
ReplyDeletePeter,
ReplyDeleteThe problem is that you offer arguments that are supremely subjective, yet suppose they are objective. Nothing wrong with subjective arguments, or objective arguments. But it's a problem when you try to claim the mantle of objectivity for your subjective assertions. A "truth in advertising" problem.
-Touchstone
(If you disagree, let's have a look at your "objective arguments", shall we and we'll see just how much subjective you tuck away in there...)
Anonymous,
ReplyDelete"Are presups too afraid to debate the atheists on their own terms? Are they afraid that the 'intellegentsia' will laugh at them, as Touchstone does to Steve's gorilla argument, if they try the evidential approach?"
Considering yourself presuppositional (maybe not in the Van Til sense perhaps? I am assuming you are?) do you see the importance of also dealing with not only 'facts' but theories of facts and one's worldview and presupposition in interpreting those facts?
What I'm trying to say is that many presups - like Robert Morey, Dusman etc. make blanket claims about all evidentialists being sinful. They read back things that aren't there. They discard perfectly good arguments.
ReplyDeleteTo give an example of what I'm saying: it's easier to evangelise someone who already believes in a kind of nebulous God than it is a hard-boiled atheist. This is because there are less intellectual difficulties remaining. To follow the presup method to it's logical conclusion shouldn't we not even use the presup argument because it's a "waste of time" and "the unbeliever knows it's true already" and just get back to preaching the gospel.
Dusman also makes the dubious claim that the classical arguments for the existence of God (worked out over thousands of years by the best minds in history) could prove Zeus or some other gods. Um, no. Has *he* even read the evidential arguments?
Even young earth creationists like answers in genesis say you need to view the world through Christian presuppositions to understand their arguments properly. Ken Ham talks about putting on "Bible glasses". It's all about paradigm shifts, webs of beliefs etc. And these all *existed* long before Van Till *explained* it with clarity. Are presups saying that just because people don't explain to their audience that everyone has presups then what they're saying is a *sin*. I mean, Whoooahh! That's somewhat legalistic. Don't like that. I noticed Kirk told the audience to "think" hard about these issues, couldn't this be implicitly asking them to rethink their presuppositions.
I'm sure they prayed a lot about the audience of their debate (4 million) beforehand. Can't *God* change people's presuppositions even if the Van Tillian approach isn't used?
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteWhat I'm trying to say is that many presups - like Robert Morey,
Dr. Morey is *not* a presuppositionalist in the traditional sense of the word. He is more Schaefferian than anything, and not really de facto on that one either. He seems to want to claim Van Tillian apologetics when it is advantageous to him to do so yet in his interview with my friend Gene Cook Jr. last year, he took a stab at Van Til via comments about the cosmonomic school, Edumund Husserl, etc. Demonstrating that Morey is not a presuppositionalist is simply proved by reading his little booklet titled "Introduction to the Faith" which is sitting right here on my shelf.
Dusman etc. make blanket claims about all evidentialists being sinful.
And you put words in my mouth. Where did I say that "all evidentialists are sinful"? I said, following Bahnsen's cue (and Van Til's, et. al.),
"For Comfort and Cameron to declare that they intended to EMPLOY this type of apologetic METHOD is irreverent, dishonoring to Christ and is downright sinful."
I didn't say that all evidentialists are de facto sinful (which they are :) . . . and presuppers are too! Chuckle), I said that employing the evidential *METHOD* is sinful and immoral. There's a difference.
They read back things that aren't there. They discard perfectly good arguments.
Perfectly good arguments huh? We'll see when I complete part two of this series and offer some critiques therewith. Till then, you're going to have to wait since I have church and family responsibilities to attend to. I'm sure you understand.
To give an example of what I'm saying: it's easier to evangelise someone who already believes in a kind of nebulous God than it is a hard-boiled atheist.
Really? Then come on out with us to this year's Summer Solstice event in Greensboro, NC and stand and listen to me attempt to reason with people who are dyed in the wool relativists. These folks are pantheists, panentheists, and polytheists and *ALL* of them will heartily agree with the classical use of the teleological argument since it can just as easily prove their version of "god" too. But more on this in Part II, which I hope to have up by late Thursday afternoon of this week (barring no emergencies).
This is because there are less intellectual difficulties remaining.
Not so. Again, part II.
To follow the presup method to it's logical conclusion shouldn't we not even use the presup argument because it's a "waste of time" and "the unbeliever knows it's true already" and just get back to preaching the gospel.
Straw man. Proverbs 26:4-5
Dusman also makes the dubious claim that the classical arguments for the existence of God (worked out over thousands of years by the best minds in history). . .
Ah yes....worked out over thousands of years by Aristotle, Kalaam, and other pagans. Their efforts clearly pointed to the *CHRISTIAN* God didn't it anonymous? Oh yes, I forgot "unmoved mover" automatically means = the Triune God of Scripture.
Has *he* even read the evidential arguments?
Um, (laughing and snickering) no, I've never read the over 50 books of evidentialist material on my shelf and I've never even cracked open the Summa Theologicae sitting on my shelf.
Even young earth creationists like answers in genesis say you need to view the world through Christian presuppositions to understand their arguments properly. Ken Ham talks about putting on "Bible glasses". It's all about paradigm shifts, webs of beliefs etc. And these all *existed* long before Van Till *explained* it with clarity.
Yes, read Calvin's institutes, the WCF, Kuyper, etc. The fact that they existed before Van Til codified them in more precise form in no way undermines a basic presuppositional procedure.
Are presups saying that just because people don't explain to their audience that everyone has presups then what they're saying is a *sin*.
No, Bahnsen, Van Til, and others are saying that when you give up Christianity to defend Christianity that is sinful. When you claim to have the ability to prove the existence of the Christian God without appealing to the Christian God via the Bible and the historic Christian faith then that is sinful. When you give creedence to the sinful autonomy of man in your defense of the faith by assuming that he/she has the ability to interpret the evidence found in general revelation and come to the proper conclusions sans any mention of faith and the Bible, then that is sinful, period. We are not called to defend a god that could just as well be Zoroaster, we are called to defend "the faith", and we do it by first "santifying Christ as Lord in [our] hearts . . ." Kirk and Ray came into the debate willing to give all of that up in direct contradiction to the commands of Scriptures, and again, to do that, is sinful (Jude 3, 1 Peter 3:15).
. . .Can't *God* change people's presuppositions even if the Van Tillian approach isn't used?
Absolutely, as I said earlier in this combox, God can always strike a straight blow with a crooked stick.
Interesting Dusman,
ReplyDeleteThankyou for cordial response. I'll shut up now, and wait for the rest of your series. :-)
"What I'm trying to say is that many presups - like Robert Morey, Dusman etc. make blanket claims about all evidentialists being sinful."
ReplyDeleteHaving followed Robert Morey's ministry for years, he clearly believes that evidential apologetics ought not be discarded...
He is against Classical Apologetics though, and any argument for the existence of God that is constructed from Natural Theology, as his Journal of Biblical Apologetics shows...
FYI: JOhn Frame was Robert Morey's professor when he attended West Minister, and I would think he is familiar with Van Tillian's apologetics, however, I do think he's more revivionary as the reference to his booklet, "INtroduction to Defending the Faith" have already been bought up
ReplyDeleteOK having read this:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.vantil.info/articles/vtfem.html
I've now had my misperceptions cleared up and can understand what you're (Jimmi and Dustin) getting at.
You were right. I was wrong. And I basically agree with everything you're saying.
Um.. this is embarassing
(Shuffles feet)
Well, I'll be off now... yeah
(Leaves through door, smacking his head against door frame on the way out)
OW! Oh the humanity! The pain, the pain!
What on earth is wrong with me?
(Reflective)
What on earth *was* wrong with me? :-)
Once I lived with pain and strife
I didn't understand Van Til
Then Dustin came into my life
And now I forever will
Once I lived with pain and strife
ReplyDeleteI didn't understand Van Til
Then Dustin came into my life
And now I forever will
LOL!
Here is John Frame's review of Morey's booklet.
ReplyDeleteDusman:
ReplyDeleteYou said, "To *willingly* enter into the debate arena attempting to defend Christianity by giving up Christianity is not only immoral and irrational.
BINGO! Very good article.
Thank you,
Campi
"leger de main" ?
ReplyDeleteWhat use is a veiled slight of hand, concealed metaphor in an intramural debate?