Presuppositionalism Truth Talks Apologetics Series: Week 6

Discussion Questions Review so far: What has been one thing in this study you have been encouraged by? What questions do you still have? Can there be a genuinely neutral point in an argument? What things do you assume to be true? Should you assume them?

Goals for this Meeting Define Presuppositionalism and all relevant terms Find the Biblical Basis for such argumentation Explore some Presuppositional Methodology Work on bringing together the Three Branches of apologetics.

Definitions Presuppositional Apologetics: The branch of apologetics that addresses the presuppositions behind worldviews in an attempt to show the incoherence of all worldviews other than the Christian faith.

OR Presuppositional Apologetics (positive): The apologetic system that takes the truth of Christianity for a given, and argues for its internal consistency in the absence of neutral ground from which one can argue.

Define all the Terms! Presupposition: Something assumed. Namely, something that you believe (either explicitly or implicitly) that you have not proven, and with which you prove your other beliefs.

Examples of Common Presuppositions Sensory information Causality

Definition the Second: Worldview: The framework of ideas and beliefs through which you understand the world.

For Clarification: The questions a worldview should answer: What is the universe? Where is the universe heading? (Either in terms of future or purpose) How should I live? What is true, if anything? How do we know what we know? Where does this worldview come from?

A Necessary Corollary: No Neutral Ground Everyone is biased. Including us. What matters is having the right biases.

Coherence/Consisten cy The ability of all the parts to not contradict one another. Coherent: A=A Incoherent: A/=A

Presuppositionalism’s Presuppositions Christianity is True All other world views are False Therefore, all other world views are somewhere fatally inconsistent

Presuppositionalism’s Playground Other worldviews’ presuppositions Other worldviews’ beliefs and ideas Other worldviews’ practices Reductio ad absurdum

Presuppositionalism’s Perspective The ancient man approached God (or even the gods) as the accused person approaches his judge. For the modern man the roles are reversed. He is the judge: God is in the dock.... The trial may even end in God’s acquittal. But the important thing is that Man is on the bench and God in the dock. - C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock. Presuppositionalism seeks to put things back in their proper order. Not man judging God, but man being confronted with God’s standards and man’s (including man’s wordview's) inadequacy.

Definition, Reprise The branch of apologetics that addresses the presuppositions behind worldviews in an attempt to show the incoherence of all worldviews other than the Christian faith. Or, The apologetic system that takes the truth of Christianity for a given, and argues for its internal consistency in the absence of neutral ground from which one can argue.

Biblical Basis Presuppositionalism’s Central Claims Christianity is True Other religions/worldviews, as a consequence, are false No unbiased argument

Biblical Basis I am the way, the truth, and the life, no one comes to the Father except through me. (John 14:6) In your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect. (1 Peter 3:15)

Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God In its simplest form: God is necessary for there to be any real knowledge. There is real knowledge. Therefore there is a God.

In its negative form: Naturalism/atheism is incompatible with true knowledge. There is true knowledge. Therefore, naturalism/atheism is false.

Why??? Prerequisites for Genuine knowledge: I. A relationship between the mind and the world called “intentionality” or “aboutness” II. Thoughts and beliefs can be either true or false. III. Humans can either accept, reject, or suspend belief about propositions/ideas/beliefs. IV. Logical Laws Exist

Prerequisites of Knowledge V. Humans are capable of apprehending these logical laws. VI. Believing one proposition is causally related, at least in part by virtue of its content, to believing other propositions. VII. Apprehending logical laws is causally related to accepting things as true or false. VIII. The person doing the thinking remains the same. IX. Our process of reasoning is systematically, or usually, reliable.

Refutations in short, to be picked up more in later weeks I. Not possible if the mind is simply a set of mechanical electro-chemical interactions within the mind. II. Not true if “thoughts” are only patterns of neural firing. A physical object cannot have truth value other than existence. III. Not possible if there is physical determinism. IV. Not possible if all that exists are physical realities.

More Refutations! V. Not possible if IV is not true. VI. Not possible under current materialistic understandings of thought, since the content of a thought is not related to the fact of the thought. VII. Not possible for the same reason as VI. VIII. Difficult to understand given cellular/atomic replacement. IX. Not likely, in fact unlikely, if thought is the product of blind evolutionary adaptation.

A Response to Charges of Circularity Doesn’t it all boil down to “Christianity is right because Christianity is right?” Well, no.

Christianity is right.

Christianity is right, and that can be verified by consistency of worldview, over against any other contender.

All arguments at a presuppositional level, or definitional level, will be properly circular. I say properly, because there is an extent to which they should be.

Doxological Detour God is the God of all truth As such, all the universe is best understood in relation to Him. God is the God of order and coherence.

Synthesis Presuppositional Framework Evidence when questions are genuine. Classical arguments when doubt is genuine.

If you’re curious as to how I would actually use this stuff I actually listen much more than talk. I ask them about what they believe. Ask pointed questions until things begin to fold in on themselves. Then show how Christianity stands where what they believe doesn’t.

Where Do We Go Now? The fun stuff in the weeks to come: 1. Epistemology: What is True? 2. Ethics: What is Good? 3. Naturalism v. Supernaturalism 4. The Problem of Evil 5. The Problem of Sovereignty/Free Will 6. Exclusivity: Don’t All Roads Lead to the Same Place? 7. Apologetics and the Real World