ARCHIVE: Presuppositionalism - What and Why?

[Clete]

What exactly is Presuppositionalism? I have been looking for a clear answer to this question for some time now. Recently Jim Hilston posted some links to a few articles that can be found at www.tgfonline.org, a web site with which he is very heavily involved. I thought that this was really excellent because it was Jim who brought this Presuppositionalism idea to my attention in the first place and so it is his particular brand of Presuppositionalism that I am most interested in figuring out.

I read the articles Jim linked to and a few of the others that they have on the Trinity Grace Fellowship Online website and I found myself agreeing with more than I disagreed with. Basically Presuppositionalism is the idea that one shouldn't argue theology from the standpoint of evidence but rather from the standpoint of presuppositions. One of the main points is that everyone comes to the table with presuppositions of one kind or another, everyone. Genuine neutrality is an illusion and is totally impossible. Thus it is one's faulty presuppositions that lead to false conclusions and therefore should be the Christians main targets in a debate on any issue. It is not only in their view more effective to expose the faulty presuppositions and deconstruct their opponent's positions from the ground up but it is their belief that this is the ONLY Biblical and therefore the ONLY acceptable means of engaging in apologetics. Personally I tend to agree that it is by far the most effective means but I submit that the suggestion that it is the only valid apologetic system is a dramatic overstatement even if it is the only one with Biblical precedent, a point which has not yet been established to my satisfaction.

Further, it seems to me that they argue their theology logically, the same way I do. Jim himself reacts to me as though I base my beliefs on an altogether different set of presuppositions but I don't believe that this is the case. Although, I must admit that perhaps I do! That's the whole point and the question I wish to begin this thread exploring. What exactly are we supposed to presuppose? So far I've figured out that the existence of God and His goodness is presupposed as is the infallibility of the Scripture (in it's original autographs), both of which I agree with. I think that Jim believes that I do not presuppose the existence of God and His goodness based in large part on the subject matter of the last thread I started where I was examining the logic of an argument Bob Enyart made as a resolution to Euthyphro's dilemma. However, while the name of the thread is "Is God Really
Good?", I chose the that title to attract attention to the thread not to convey an accurate description of the actual topic that I wanted to discuss. The actual point of the thread was simply to explore the validity of the logic in Bob's argument with the intent of my future use of the argument in support for the logical necessity of the existence of the Trinity. I do in fact understand that the entirety of existence itself is irrational if God does not exist and that it is equally irrational not to presume that God is, in fact, good. I do not think that those issues can be rationally rejected under any circumstances. What I do reject, however, is the idea that examining those issues logically is disallowed by Scripture which is what it seems to me that the Presuppositionalist is saying. Whether or not the existence of God and His goodness is presupposed or not, it is still factually part of reality and will, therefore, stand up to the rigors of a logical examination. The point is that while many Christians are presuppositionalists and believe that certain things are literally unquestionably true, the fact remains that many unbelievers are not presuppositionalists and find it very easy to question anything and everything including the existence of God. And when the unbeliever presents an apparently valid argument which calls any Christian belief into question, we should be able to meet that challenge head on and deal with it with sound reason. I agree that eventually the discussion will inevitably bump into the unbeliever's presuppositions but I believe we should wait until those issues come up to address them. It seems to me that in this present "scientific" culture that we should do in Rome as the Romans do. We should engage the argument at what ever point the opposition brings the attack. If they want to argue evidence then we can do that, it's not like it's difficult to bring the discussion to an examination of the presuppositions if it comes to that but the point is that not everyone is even in a place emotionally or intellectually where they would even be able to engage the discussion at that level to begin with, so where is the benefit in restricting one's self to the exclusive use of presuppositional arguments? For you archers out there, it would be analogous to having field point and broad-head mounted arrows in your quiver and intentionally restricting yourself to only using the broad-heads even when the field points would be far more appropriate. Why do that? I don't get it!

So to clarify, I wish ask two main questions…

1. Why should Presuppositionalism be the ONLY allowable apologetic system? Or put another way; give me an apologetic for the exclusivity of the Presuppositional apologetic.
2. What is it, precisely, that we are to presuppose, and why, and by what means are we to distinguish those issues from other doctrinal issues that shouldn't necessarily be presupposed but are instead, valid topics for debate?

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Hilston]

Clete,

I like your approach to this question and I would like to give it more time than I have at my disposal presently. I will try to reply soon, but in the meantime, I'd like to ask some preliminary (and admittedly leading) questions about your summary questions:

Clete asked: 1. Why should Presuppositionalism be the ONLY allowable apologetic system? Or put another way; give me an apologetic for the exclusivity of the Presuppositional apologetic.

Do you believe we are allowed to be creative with evangelism? By that I do not mean creative regarding the vehicle or garb through which the gospel is presented, but the content and method. How much latitude do the scriptures give us regarding the content and method of our evangelism?

Clete asked: 2. What is it, precisely, that we are to presuppose, and why, and by what means are we to distinguish those issues from other doctrinal issues that shouldn't necessarily be presupposed but are instead, valid topics for debate?

I don't think this is the right question. I don't think any topics are invalid for debate, but some topics are absurd, and debate can serve to expose that. Some claims are derived from underlying presuppositions; some claims are presuppositions themselves. All claims, even presupposed ones, can be proven or disproven, although in some cases, not directly.

For further reading on this, here are a couple of threads I started way back when Bob Enyart debated Zakath on the existence of God:

• The impossibility of atheism
• Bob Enyart has already lost the debate

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Man.... ya know... it would be so refreshing if just once Jim just responded to a post without stopping the thread turning it around and asking that all participants follow him around in one of his wacky goose chases.

Any other Presuppositionalists out there that can respond to Clete's post?

 

[Chileice]

Clete,
I find the purpose of this thread very intriguing. I hope that I will have the time to dedicate to a little further study in order to be an active participant in the discussion. On a very casual level, I like what you have said. Most people don't even know what they presuppose. Most have presuppositions pre-programmed from the cultures they live in, the families in which they were raised or the religions to which they have belonged or participated in.

As we encounter more and more diverse world-views in todays society, it will be important for Christians to know what they pre-suppose as well as to be able to draw attention to the presuppositions of others with the end of drawing them to Christ. I hope your thread prospers.

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by Hilston
Clete,

I like your approach to this question and I would like to give it more time than I have at my disposal presently. I will try to reply soon, but in the meantime, I'd like to ask some preliminary (and admittedly leading) questions about your summary questions:

I understand about time constraints! As long as we can have a productive exchange of ideas please feel free to take all the time you need.

Clete asked: 1. Why should Presuppositionalism be the ONLY allowable apologetic system? Or put another way; give me an apologetic for the exclusivity of the Presuppositional apologetic.

Do you believe we are allowed to be creative with evangelism? By that I do not mean creative regarding the vehicle or garb through which the gospel is presented, but the content and method. How much latitude do the scriptures give us regarding the content and method of our evangelism?

I either don't understand the question (what you're getting at) or else I simply don't know the answer to the question. I would say, however, that as long as the message we are communicating is accurate then it is allowable. As I said in the opening post, it seems to me that we should fight the battle at the point at which it is brought to us, or put in more offensive terms we should bring the battle to where the enemy is at.

Clete asked: 2. What is it, precisely, that we are to presuppose, and why, and by what means are we to distinguish those issues from other doctrinal issues that shouldn't necessarily be presupposed but are instead, valid topics for debate?

I don't think this is the right question. I don't think any topics are invalid for debate, but some topics are absurd, and debate can serve to expose that. Some claims are derived from underlying presuppositions; some claims are presuppositions themselves. All claims, even presupposed ones, can be proven or disproved, although in some cases, not directly.

Okay so which issues are presuppositions and which aren't and how do you objectively distinguish the difference? And I put the word objectively in there on purpose because it seems that presuppositionalists don't think it possible to be objective (neutral) and so I'm thinking that what you consider to be a Christian presupposition is itself based upon presuppositions which are in turn based on their own presuppositions and on and on ad infinitum adnausium It's just as if presuppositionalists presuppose presuppositionalism! Which if so, is pretty darn circular! I admit that this seems to ridiculous to be true so I have a feeling that I've missed something but I don't know what it is.

For further reading on this, here are a couple of threads I started way back when Bob Enyart debated Zakath on the existence of God:

• The impossibility of atheism
• Bob Enyart has already lost the debate

I'll take a look at it. Thanks! :thumb:

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by Chileice

Clete,
I find the purpose of this thread very intriguing. I hope that I will have the time to dedicate to a little further study in order to be an active participant in the discussion. On a very casual level, I like what you have said. Most people don't even know what they presuppose. Most have presuppositions pre-programmed from the cultures they live in, the families in which they were raised or the religions to which they have belonged or participated in.

As we encounter more and more diverse world-views in todays society, it will be important for Christians to know what they pre-suppose as well as to be able to draw attention to the presuppositions of others with the end of drawing them to Christ. I hope your thread prospers.

A good place to start in order to be on the same page that Jim and I are on would be to read the following...

• Pauline Apologetics and Atheism
• The Matrix & Presuppositional Apologetics
• Pauline Apologetics and Evangelical Religions

You could also read just about anything on that web site.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[geralduk]

While you may desire a clear undestanding of this matter.
I would ask though WHY you should want to ?
For there are as many 'ISMS' to day as there are versions of the bible.
and each ISM brings forth the counter ism to which then each 'faction' then fights to the death over and others sub divide the isms into degrees of ISMNESS!
SO THAT THE WAR can last for another few generations while the world runs head long into the mouth of hell.

It seesm to me that while men will debate ANYTHING other than DO what the scriptures SAY.
They are UNWILLING to ACCEPT that which is LAID OUT CLEARLY and simply by God in them.
But must rather justyfy themselves by their multitude of words put in such a way that you ned ANOTHER BOOK just to understand what they are writing about.
Im glad therefore and thankfull to God that HIS book is albeit unfathomable in the sense that no man can plumb all ist depths scale all its hights nor cover all the breadths contained therein.
you are STILL able to go up to the ankles(like a young child) up to the loins (like a young man)and there is enough to swim in.
Yet men seem UNABLE or disatisfied with the bread that has come from heaven but must needs have meat from some other scource.
Men may then be able to eat thereof but the meat will bring leaness to thier souls,

This is not a personal critisism but rather a warning to leave those men to thier wranglings and long wearysome contentions.
But rather keep and hold to "the simplicity that is in Christ" and if you need a dictionary or another book to understand what men are talkign about then they are FAR from that simplicity! and it must be said have left thier first love.
For if you know of a truth CHRIST then you should be able to progresivley preach CHRIST! and Him crucyfied and yea risen from the dead"
Rather than ANY ism that brings men to CONFUSION and ERROR rather than "makes men free" and if men call you foolish for doing as such then let themn so call you.
For you will be wise in Gods eyes.
Which is far better than to be wise in the worlds eyes.


Yours in Christ
gerald uk

 

[Yorzhik]

Thanks Clete, you asked the question so much clearer that I was able.

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by geralduk
But must rather justyfy themselves by their multitude of words put in such a way that you ned ANOTHER BOOK just to understand what they are writing about.

As far as I am concerned people can publish all the books they like as long as they use a spell checker and an occasional comma.

Feel free to post again when you have something to say that pertains to the topic at hand. I'm not interested in your 'nonismmatism'. That idea has already been explored to death on this web site.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by Yorzhik

Thanks Clete, you asked the question so much clearer that I was able.

Well thanks for saying so but I can't get past the feeling that I still don't get this Presuppositionalism thing at all. I've got a better handle on it than I did a few weeks ago but it seems so circular that I just have to be missing something important.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Balder]

This is an "Exclusively Christian Theology" room, so if my comments here are not welcome, I'll back out! I just wanted to add something to the mix, for anyone who is interested in exploring the implications, or examining the arguments in the following passages against the Christian presuppositionalist perspective.

The follow excerpt deals with belief, presuppositions, and knowledge, and their relationship to each other as well as their differences from each other:

REPLACING KNOWLEDGE WITH BELIEF

Whenever we need or desire knowledge, we are free to investigate for ourselves the limits of what is already known. Most often, however, we do not choose this course. Instead, we turn to an established authority, adopting the content of a knowing made available in advance. Whether we look to tradition, the instruction of parents, the advice of friends or experts, the guidance of a supernatural power, or perhaps simply the accumulated memories of prior acts of knowing, the outcome is the same: the substitution of a belief for knowledge.

Once adopted, a belief operates in a characteristic way. The mind classifies or labels experience in conformity with the belief and draws conclusions accordingly, perhaps ‘re-presenting' the result as potential content for a new belief. The structure so determined screens out direct knowledge of experience itself.

In establishing this structure, the key step is the acceptance of the content of the belief as trustworthy. Although we 'know' the content of the belief as content, we adopt the belief not because we know its content to be true, but because we accept the authority of its source. It is this acceptance that makes the belief a belief.

The accepting of a higher authority entails no knowledge, only the hope or conviction that the transmitted belief has been safely captured and that it ‘encloses' accurate knowledge. What then is the basis for yielding to the authority of a source whose knowledge we cannot directly verify? We might reply to such a question with specific explanations and arguments intended to establish the 'trustworthiness' of this or that specific authority. More fundamental than any such explanations, however, is another belief: the implicit notion that we ourselves lack knowledge, that someone or something else has greater access to the knowledge we need.

Perhaps it seems that this belief, at least, can be traced to a more direct knowing, for daily experience confirms at every turn that we lack access to the knowledge we need or want. But this lack may reflect the basic belief in our own not-knowing, rather than confirming it. Perhaps we do not know simply because we have forgotten how to make contact with knowledge, or else because we do not make the effort to do so. Perhaps we originally accepted a belief in our own not-knowing for reasons that suited our needs at the time, or have carried it forward unthinkingly from the original state of not knowing that characterized the first years of our lives.

Present knowledge insists that there are fixed limits on our ability to know, such as the physical limits that situate the self in space and limit it in time, or endow the body with specific attributes. Would such fixed limits operate in the same way if conventional belief structures were not in effect? For example, if our belief in the self shifted would new possibilities for knowledge open?

Beliefs as Carriers of Knowledge

If beliefs could truly communicate knowledge, the only thing standing between us and knowing would be correct judgments as to which beliefs were trustworthy. This state of affairs, however, does not seem to apply. Even assuming that beliefs were ‘carriers' for the knowledge we are lacking, there seems to be no way that we could benefit fully from that knowledge.

In the first place, the communication of knowledge through the transfer of beliefs will succeed only to the extent that we have the capacity to understand what is being communicated. Qualities of perception or awareness implicit in the belief will be lost in the course of transmission if they lie beyond the range of our own experience. We will receive from beliefs a knowing that has been leveled down to conform to our own lack of knowledge. In this sense, the belief as we receive it is a projection of the activity of our own mind.

Second, when we rely on beliefs we are accepting a structure that posits our own lack of knowledge and confirms our needs and wants as the basis for all action. The limitations that these presuppositions establish will continue to operate, no matter how subtle and refined the system of beliefs to which we give our allegiance.

Third, beliefs interpose themselves between our own experience and our knowledge of that experience. No matter how comprehensive the belief, it will leave the experience itself unknown.

Finally, even if a belief contains 'true' knowledge, we have no way of knowing whether that knowledge is complete. We could only determine this on the basis of another belief. As long as we 'import’ knowledge from outside our own knowing, we will lack the capacity to determine the depth and the scope of what we know.

In relying on beliefs, we are accepting an imperfect substitute for knowledge. Perhaps this seems necessary if we are to gain access to a vast range of knowledge outside our direct experience, but the result is just the opposite. We choke off knowledge that we might develop on our own, without escaping the limitations of the knowledge we have already adopted.

When beliefs replace knowledge, vision is foreclosed, leading to stagnation. Beliefs may be accurate in their content and useful in their operation, but in being passed from one person to another, they bypass our most fundamental concerns. We touch the true significance of a belief only by discovering for ourselves the knowledge it embodies.
~Love of Knowledge, Tarthang Tulku

Peace,
Balder

 

[Hilston]

Clete writes:
I either don't understand the question (what you're getting at) or else I simply don't know the answer to the question. I would say, however, that as long as the message we are communicating is accurate then it is allowable.

I agree. But aren't there methods of evangelism you disagree with? For example, years ago, I was on an "evangelism team." I was assigned to go door-to-door with a guy I had never worked with before. We visited a woman who was having troubles (money problems, divorce, etc). After she shared her burdens with us, my compadre, John, did most of the talking, and without explaining much of anything about the gospel, asked this woman if she would like to say the sinner's prayer. She agreed. I put a halt to it right away. He was so eager to get someone to say the prayer that it didn't matter to him whether or not the person understood the gospel. Would you agree that this is unbiblical?

Another example: When I worked at a Kinko's in college, I had heard that the women at this local apostolic church would flirt with men to get them to come to church. This was evangelism to them. I took it as a nasty and probably distorted rumor, until I saw it in action with my own eyes. A woman, dressed to kill (for Christ, of course), came into Kinko's to get her church bulletins photocopied. As I was copying her bulletins, I could see and hear her hitting on one of the other customers and inviting him to church. I'm sure you would agree that this is unbiblical, right?

My point in asking these questions is this: If there is a biblical way to evangelize in contrast to unbiblical ways to evangelize, perhaps there is a biblical way of defending the faith in contrast to unbiblical way that can be similarly considered.

Clete writes:
As I said in the opening post, it seems to me that we should fight the battle at the point at which it is brought to us, or put in more offensive terms we should bring the battle to where the enemy is at.

I agree with you completely, at least your wording. But I need to know what you mean. Can you give an example or two?

Clete writes:
Okay so which issues are presuppositions and which aren't and how do you objectively distinguish the difference?

It changes from person to person. Some people presuppose the uniformity of nature and base their whole worldview on that. Others presuppose the verity of logic and base their whole worldview on that. Most people have presuppositions that they're not even aware of and have never had them challenged.

Clete writes:
And I put the word objectively in there on purpose because it seems that presuppositionalists don't think it possible to be objective (neutral) ...

Objective and neutral are not the same. There is objective truth. The question is not whether or not something is objective, but whether or not the grounds for claiming objectivity can be justified.

Clete writes:
... and so I'm thinking that what you consider to be a Christian presupposition is itself based upon presuppositions ...

Let me give you one and let's see how circular it is: A Christian presupposition is that the Bible is the inerrant and infallible Word of God. What presupposition would you say that is based upon?

 

[Sozo]

Originally posted by geralduk

This is not a personal critisism but rather a warning to leave those men to thier wranglings and long wearysome contentions.
But rather keep and hold to "the simplicity that is in Christ" and if you need a dictionary or another book to understand what men are talkign about then they are FAR from that simplicity!

One thing is certain, geralduk, when it comes to understanding your posts, I never presuppose.

:chuckle:

 

[Hilston]

Tarthang Tulku writes:
Whenever we need or desire knowledge, we are free to investigate for ourselves the limits of what is already known.

Tarthang Tulku's premise is undermined in his very first sentence. As a Buddhist, Tulku has no justifiable grounds on which to determine for himself the limits of what is already known. If you think he does, I'd like to hear what you think it is and how it is justified.

Tarthang Tulku writes:
"... the outcome is the same: the substitution of a belief for knowledge."

Belief cannot be separated from knowledge. Tell me something you or Tarthang Tulku hold as knowledge and I'll show you that belief is inextricably tied to its foundation.

Tarthang Tulku writes:
If beliefs could truly communicate knowledge, the only thing standing between us and knowing would be correct judgments as to which beliefs were trustworthy.

This is exactly right!

Tarthang Tulku writes:
This state of affairs, however, does not seem to apply.

Oh yes it does! It applies when your knowledge is informed by God's Word.

Tarthang Tulku writes:
Finally, even if a belief contains 'true' knowledge, we have no way of knowing whether that knowledge is complete.

Yes we do. If we base our beliefs and our concomitant knowledge on the foundation of God's Word, we can have certainty about our knowledge.

Tarthang Tulku writes:
In relying on beliefs, we are accepting an imperfect substitute for knowledge.

How does Tulku know this? Did he determine this in a laboratory? Does he have empirical data that we can all examine? Or is it just a belief?

 

[Balder]

Hilston,

Tarthang Tulku's premise is undermined in his very first sentence. As a Buddhist, Tulku has no justifiable grounds on which to determine for himself the limits of what is already known. If you think he does, I'd like to hear what you think it is and how it is justified.

First, I would like to hear why you think his being a Buddhist disqualifies him from being able to make any determinations about the limits of knowledge, or I presume from being able to make any valid determinations at all.

I would also like to hear if you accept his definition of belief, or if you would modify it or refine it in any way. That would help me respond to the rest of your letter.

Last, I would be interested in hearing your defense of your contention (an outrageous one, in my opinion) that all valid forms of knowledge, reasoning, logic, etc, derive necessarily from the Biblical/Christian worldview. This would include an explanation of why Christian presuppositions -- and there are many! -- should be regarded as the only valid ones.

My guess is that the basis for your argument will be that knowledge demands a founding set of parameters which cannot be questioned, for any knowledge claims to be able to "stand." And that further, these foundations are in fact built of nothing other than beliefs -- second-hand information which is accepted on the basis of the authority of its presupposed origin. My guess could be wrong, though, so if you would be patient with me and take the time to answer, or at least to point me to relevant passages on other websites, I'll be grateful. I am entering this conversation as a "sideline" participant and an observer, and I do not have time to read all of the links provided so far.

Peace,
Balder

 

[Hilston]

balder writes:
First, I would like to hear why you think his being a Buddhist disqualifies him from being able to make any determinations about the limits of knowledge, ...

I didn't say it disqualified him from making determinations. Just that he has no justifiable grounds on which to base them. I don't doubt for a second that Tulku can balance his checkbook. My claim is that he cannot justify the grounds upon which he does so.

balder writes:
... or I presume from being able to make any valid determinations at all.

Again, a Buddhist can make valid determinations, but he cannot justify them on the basis of his worldview. The Buddhist's worldview is internally incoherent and is unable to account for the most important facets of human existence (science, mathematics, logic, morality, or human dignity).

balder writes:
I would also like to hear if you accept his definition of belief, or if you would modify it or refine it in any way. That would help me respond to the rest of your letter.

A state or function of the mind in which confidence is placed in a person or thing.

balder writes:
Last, I would be interested in hearing your defense of your contention (an outrageous one, in my opinion) that all valid forms of knowledge, reasoning, logic, etc, derive necessarily from the Biblical/Christian worldview. This would include an explanation of why Christian presuppositions -- and there are many! -- should be regarded as the only valid ones.

No other worldview can justify knowledge, reasoning, logic, etc. Anyone who presumes to use logic is tacitly borrowing from the Biblical worldview.

balder writes:
My guess is that the basis for your argument will be that knowledge demands a founding set of parameters which cannot be questioned, for any knowledge claims to be able to "stand."

Not at all. All things can be questioned, even fundamental presuppositions. The question is whether or not sense can be made of them. The Buddhist cannot make sense of his own presuppositions, holds conflicting premises in tension, and blindly assumes facts of reality and existence without cogent justification.

balder writes:
And that further, these foundations are in fact built of nothing other than beliefs -- second-hand information which is accepted on the basis of the authority of its presupposed origin.

Do you believe in the verity of the scientific method, Balder? Or do you know it is truthworthy? In either case, why? And how?

 

[Balder]

Hilston,

To pursue your (as yet unsupported) assertions that the Buddhist worldview is incoherent would take us too far astray from Clete's intentions for this thread, I'm sure. I certainly would be interested to hear your criticisms, though, and would invite you to post them elsewhere, or on any thread on TOL I start.

No other worldview can justify knowledge, reasoning, logic, etc. Anyone who presumes to use logic is tacitly borrowing from the Biblical worldview.

You've made this claim elsewhere, and I've asked you to back it up before. I think going into the premises of this claim would not take us too far astray from the central concerns of this thread, so I will ask you again to offer some defense of this very bold (and at this point, totally unsupported) assertion.

Do you believe in the verity of the scientific method, Balder? Or do you know it is truthworthy? In either case, why? And how?

The scientific method appears to be efficient at generating certain types of knowledge, but its presuppositions determine the scope and nature of the knowledge generated.

Peace,
Balder

 

[Hilston]

Balder writes:
Hilston,

To pursue your (as yet unsupported) assertions that the Buddhist worldview is incoherent would take us too far astray from Clete's intentions for this thread, I'm sure. I certainly would be interested to hear your criticisms, though, and would invite you to post them elsewhere, or on any thread on TOL I start.

It really isn't all that complicated. How would you finish this sentence? "According to the Buddhist worldview, the verity of the scientific method is based upon __fill in the blank__."

Hilston wrote:
No other worldview can justify knowledge, reasoning, logic, etc. Anyone who presumes to use logic is tacitly borrowing from the Biblical worldview.

Balder writes:
You've made this claim elsewhere, and I've asked you to back it up before. I think going into the premises of this claim would not take us too far astray from the central concerns of this thread, so I will ask you again to offer some defense of this very bold (and at this point, totally unsupported) assertion.

Actually, it's right on-topic. Here is the backing to the claim: The existence of God and the revelation of His purposes in Scripture gives sufficient justification for our general reliance upon and confidence in discursive reasoning, logic, the scientific method, and mathematics. Furthermore, God and His Word give us objective grounds upon which to understand and apply principles of morality and human dignity. Do you have any other worldviews in mind that can compete with that?

Hilston wrote:
Do you believe in the verity of the scientific method, Balder? Or do you know it is truthworthy? In either case, why? And how?

Balder writes:
The scientific method appears to be efficient at generating certain types of knowledge, but its presuppositions determine the scope and nature of the knowledge generated.

Do you believe in its trustworthiness? Do you know that it is trustworthy, or are you withholding judgment? Do you only trust it "so far"? Do you believe the underlying presuppositions of the scientific method are justified?

 

[Balder]

Hilston,

Your comments, such as ...

The Buddhist's worldview is internally incoherent and is unable to account for the most important facets of human existence (science, mathematics, logic, morality, or human dignity).

... are frankly ignorant and uninformed, and so full of presuppositions that it actually would take quite a lot to unpack the prejudice behind them. But to do so would take us too far away from the topic of this thread.

On the other hand, if you can demonstrate that Christianity is the real and in fact the only acceptable basis for logic, rationality, the scientific method, morality, etc, then we won't even have to deal with Buddhism or other religions.

The existence of God and the revelation of His purposes in Scripture gives sufficient justification for our general reliance upon and confidence in discursive reasoning, logic, the scientific method, and mathematics. Furthermore, God and His Word give us objective grounds upon which to understand and apply principles of morality and human dignity. Do you have any other worldviews in mind that can compete with that?

I can think of several worldviews that can compete with that, and of course Buddhism is one of them. But let's stick for the moment to Christianity and to the tenets of presuppositionalism. First off, when you say that "only a Biblical worldview" can support and ground these things, can you unpack that a little? What aspects of the Biblical worldview? Specifically, what aspects of the Biblical worldview do this that cannot be found in other theistic religions?

From what I've read on the presuppositionalist websites so far, I am seeing a lot of smoke and mirrors and not a lot of substance. If you can point me to specific cogent arguments that support your thesis, please direct me to them.

Peace,
Balder

 

[Chileice]

Originally posted by Tulku

In relying on beliefs, we are accepting an imperfect substitute for knowledge. Perhaps this seems necessary if we are to gain access to a vast range of knowledge outside our direct experience, but the result is just the opposite. We choke off knowledge that we might develop on our own, without escaping the limitations of the knowledge we have already adopted.

When beliefs replace knowledge, vision is foreclosed, leading to stagnation. Beliefs may be accurate in their content and useful in their operation, but in being passed from one person to another, they bypass our most fundamental concerns. We touch the true significance of a belief only by discovering for ourselves the knowledge it embodies.



Peace,
Balder

Balder,
I agree with much of what Hilston has said in this thread but not all of it. I will deal with that in a minute. However, what Tulku said sounds plausible on the surface, but when one examines it more deeply, his way of thinking is what chokes off knowledge. Without accepting the advances and learning of previous generations we are unable to advance as a society. I have faith in calculus and have accepted it without contmplating all of the theorems and axioms behind it. Had I to rethink every mathematical proof before accepting it in order to claim I believed it, I would be in a constant state of unknowing and several hundred years behind in my work.

Although I agree that we should be more concerned with discovering for ourselves what knowledge entails (hence my participation here and in the astronomy club, for example), I cannot spend my whole life trying to prove Copernicus was right, or Kepler or Luther or Zwingli or my own pastor as a child. Of course I must not walk blindly behind them unaware that they COULD be wrong. My radar is up to gain knowledge which might better my own life experience, but I am also enjoying "knowing " some things that I didn't have to go through life trying to figure out. I suppose those things, religious and non-religious (if there is such a thing) are my suppositions.