"Paul, how would you define "cogency" exactly"?http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2009/05/death-of-christian-apologetics.html#8876832514310712989
I would define cogency briefly as: A sound argument that is recognized by your audience to be so due to the presentation of its parts (form and content).
For example, here's a sound argument:
[1] God exists or December first is Christmas day.
[2] December first is not Christmas day.
[3] Therefore, God exists.
This argument is sound, not cogent.
If your apologetic argument is one that no one will recognize as sound, it's basically useless as an apologetic argument. Patting yourself on the back for merely announcing "the truth" to non-believer, and consoling yourself that "he'll be judged all the more for rejecting it", isn't doing apologetics.
Take the above argument again and let's draw another conclusion:
[1*] God does not exist or December first is Christmas day.
[2*] December first is not Christmas day.
[3*] Therefore, God does not exist.
An atheist will believe all the premises of this argument are true and so believe he's presented us with a sound argument for the non-existence of God. The problem is, like with the first argument, the atheological argument is not cogent.
However, it is the case that one of these arguments is in fact sound (as a Christian, I believe it's the first). The problem is that its soundness is hidden from us. The only way an audience would recognize the alleged soundness of the one over the other is because they already believe that God exists or that he does not.
But for both sides, there is nothing in their respective argument that rationally compels us to accept the premises.
So (one of) the apologist's job is to try to figure out how to make his arguments cogent. To get the audience to accept what you believe (know!) is true. You can do this by arguing, expanding, elaborating, for and/or on one or more of the premises.
There are many ways to do this, and a future post may be helpful in fleshing some of this out, but we can mention one thing not to do. Thwacking unbelievers on the head with your Bible and telling them that they have a reason to believe that God exists because the Bible says God exists, and the Bible is the word of God and so cannot be wrong, ergo God exists, isn't the way to go.
After reading this post, I'm wondering if the apostle Paul, or any other biblical character did apologetics?
ReplyDeleteOn perhaps a related note, it "seems" that you would agree with John Warwick Montgomery when he states:
Sadly, the great Calvinist dogmatician Cornelius Van Til believed that his great apologetic accomplishment, over against B. B. Warfield, was to make the God who reveals Himself in Scripture the starting-point for Apologetics as well as for Dogmatics. Warfield, however, knew what he was doing: an Apologetic which insisits that the non-Christian start where the Christian starts is really no Apologetic at all. At best it is preaching; at worst it is simply counterproductive.
Jeff,
ReplyDeleteI wonder what you disagree with? In fact, much of this post was taken from things Bahnsen has said directly or indirectly. Bahnsen gave the disjunctive syllogism example in his tape series "Arguments for God" and he rejected the "The Bible says God exists, since it is the word of God, God exists" kind of argument in his debate with Stein.
What, exactly, is it in this post that would make you wonder if the Apostle Paul did apologetics? I would appeal to "Godsaidit" with, say, Jews, since that would be *persuasive* for them. So, you'd need to spell out, exactly, what you mean. There's also positive and negative apologetics as well.
Further, why would it "seem" that I agree with Montgomery? In what sense did I indicate that I do or don't "presuppose the Bible?" What statements are you drawing your information from? Then, analyse them and draw clear conclusions which support your premises for all to see. (Speaking of Habermas BTW, Habermas has taken a lot of Bahnsen's critiques of Montgomery to task in the book "Tough-Minded Christianity" (pp. 426-451).
Jeff, as usual, you're reacting rather than interacting.
So where does Paul do his positive and negative apologetics.
ReplyDeleteJeff,
ReplyDelete1) It appears that you do not understand "presuppositionalism". Presuppositionalism recognizes an opposing worldviews presuppositions and then mounts a transcendental argument against that worldviews foundational beliefs. This is far from preaching.
2) The gospel of John claims to be an eyewitness account of Jesus's miracles. The purpose of the gospel is so that the reader may believe in Jesus. I think there may be an argument there:
1) Eyewitness testimony is crucial in establishing the truth (probability) of events.
2) John was an eyewitness to Jesus' teachings and miracles.
3) Therefore, the Miracles of Jesus likely happened.
Jeff,
ReplyDeleteYou're dodging now. You made a claim that "after reading this post, [you] wonder if the apostle Paul, or any other biblical character did apologetics."
How so? What, precisely, are you taking from this post that would cause you to wonder such a thing?
And, I'd even go so far as to say, granting you're right, so what? I don't believe this, but even if you were right, so what. They also didn't do any astronomy or cooking either.
Well it has really hit the fan this time.
ReplyDeleteBut really, I think this was a "fight" long overdue and I think it will need to continue more in order to knock out all the cobwebs.
While such discussions may not accomplish anything for the key players, who have too much invested to change their minds, I think it will profit others in the long run.
At least one can be sure that if the various sides have no conversation they are guaranteed to accomplish nothing.
1) It appears that you do not understand "presuppositionalism".I'm not sure exactly how you deduced this, but that is ok. Perhaps I don't fully understand presuppositional apologetics. But, for the record, I would claim to be a Van Tillian (at this point I like Oliphint's "covenantal apologetic" language better. I have read Van Til, Bahnsen and the like. I have listen to ?? hours of Bahnsen, etc.
ReplyDeleteAgain, while I don't claim to be an expert in presuppositional apologetics, I would in no way fit into any other camp.
Presuppositionalism recognizes an opposing worldviews presuppositions and then mounts a transcendental argument against that worldviews foundational beliefs. This is far from preaching.Actually, presuppositionalism is much more than this, but I certainly wouldn't tell you without knowing your background knowledge of the subject, etc. that you do not know what presuppostional apologetics is.
I would simply take issue with the dichotomy between proclaiming, heralding the good news, and apologetics. I'm of the opinion that they are of the same genus.
Paul, does an apologetic argument always have to fit in and be presented in syllogism?
ReplyDeleteJeff,
ReplyDeleteMaybe I misunderstood you. If I did I apologize. Your view looks to be somewhat multiperspectival (Frame?). I imagine you have read quite bit of John Frame, and this appears to be similar to something he would say.
In Christ,
Blake
Jeff said:
ReplyDeletePaul, does an apologetic argument always have to fit in and be presented in syllogism?
5/29/2009 9:44 AM
No, but if it is an *argument* it has some form or structure; that's just an analytic truth.
As your beloved Dr. Bahnsen defines 'argument':
"A group of propositions, wherein the truth one, the conclusion, is asserted upon the basis of the others, the premises."
Thanks for the explanation Paul about what you mean by cogent.
ReplyDeleteSeems like you guys are arguing about the most cogent way to counter the objection of circularity oka the "begging-the-question" objection.