Presuppositional Apologetics

[Haven]

Recently, many Christians have become fond of presuppositional apologetics, a method of defending Christianity in which the truth of the Christian worldview is assumed and the apologist seeks to expose the flaws and inconsistencies of other worldviews. Presuppositionalists generally hold to either the Clarkian or Van Tillian approaches, which have minor differences but make the same general assumption that the Bible / Christian god is the basis for all knowledge and that one cannot know anything apart from that foundation.

Critics point this out as logically invalid via the fallacy of begging the question, and feel that presuppositionalism is nothing more than a pointless exercise in circular reasoning. Many atheists refuse to debate presuppositionalists, stating that any such debate is an exercise in futility.

Debate question: What do you think? Is presuppositional apologetics sound? Is it a path to truth? Does it beg the question? Is it simply pointless circular reasoning, or is it an argument which skeptics must take seriously?

[theopoesis]

Your view of presuppositionalism sounds very close to Reformed epistemology, in fact, nearly identical.

No surprise as presuppositionalist thinkers were all reformed, and they are kind of shades of the same gradient.

I disagree with your critique of nihilism. You seem to be saying that a reduction of knowledge, morality, etc. to human constructs is unsatisfactory, but you don't give a reason beyond your own aesthetic feeling. Why is that?

Also, the statement that "X does not exist" / "X is socially constructed" / "X is a form of power" still explains X, offering both explanatory power and scope. In this sense, I reiterate that nihilism is on par with RE / Christian presuppositionalism, offering a sound counterexample.

I suppose I took as obvious what must not be.

I'll begin with an analogy. Let's say you're a fruit farmer who grows apples. You are part of an agrarian society which is small but economically strong, but which depends almost entirely on the exports of your society's fruit crop for survival. You eat fruit, your festivals revolve around fruit. The stories of your culture and taught in your history class relates to wise fruit farmers of the past, or to men who fought to defend the fruit farms against invaders. Then one day, a traveling philosopher comes to town and begins to teach that trees don't exist. They are illusions, necessarily constructed by the human mind as a result of solar radiation interacting with the dust particles of the air.

How would you respond to such a man? Of course, it would seem the easiest answer would be to say, "From whence, then, came this fruit?" The man, if logically consistent, would have to claim that illusionary trees could not produce real fruit, and thus the fruit must be illusionary as well. Our next recourse, then, would be to suggest that our entire agrarian society was based upon the fruit which this man denied existed! It is the basis for our social interactions, our economy, our history and culture. If the man still denied the fruit, it would seem obvious that his theory was inadequate at explaining everything we actually know. Of course, we could never possibly convince him that trees existed, if he was so committed to that presupposition as to re-interpret evidence to the contrary. However, it would seem quite obvious that his teachings should not have an effect on our fruit growing agrarian society. I do suppose it would still be quite possible that people would be duped.

I see nihilism at work in our world as on par with the fruit denying salesman in the agrarian world. We live in a civilization which is operates based on the idea that our knowledge is actually knowledge. When we grow up in school, we do so believing that we are learning the truth about things, or at least a shadow of it. We proceed to college to become experts in a specific field. We take jobs which assume our expertise corresponds to something real in the world, which makes our expertise useful and worth money. When we are sick, we visit the doctor, assuming that they actually know something about the body. When our car breaks down, we go see a mechanic, assuming they actually know something about how our cars work and how to fix them. In our free time, we debate on debatingchristianity.com, assuming that we can learn things about our own religion and about other religions, and that we can assess the truth of various viewpoints. And so forth and so on.

But the nihilist says this isn't knowledge. There is no such thing as knowledge. I suppose then our entire civilization must be built upon a myth. I suppose a sophisticated nihilist could claim that only metaphysical knowledge was illusory, but (1) that would be a weak form of nihilism, far weaker than the nihilists I have read express; and (2) I believe the necessity of metaphysics could still be, with some labor, demonstrated.

But let's just take this man-on-the-street nihilism which claims no knowledge. Can we really accept that as explaining the entire scope of our experience, our lives, and our civilization? Do we really know nothing more about truth than when we enrolled in kindergarden? Does the doctor help us overcome pneumonia, or remove our tonsils, or vaccinate us out of pure luck, or does he actually know something? Does our mechanic keep getting lucky in fixing our car? Is it all a ploy for power? Is our time here really nothing more than shouting at one another at the top of our lungs without any hope of discovering truth, as truth itself doesn't exist?

If you really want to be the ubermensch, not beholden to the power of another, then I suggest you rewrite for yourself everything you know. Fix your own car. Operate on your own body. Leave debatingchristianity and start spending that time investing in the stock market or robbing people or something.

But otherwise, it would seem as if you live as if knowledge and truth seem to be real. This is called verisimilitude: the appearance of truth. Can nihilism explain verisimilitude? Can it explain our cumulative life experience at all?

I had thought that it was obvious that explaining the origins of knowledge in power was quite different from explaining knowledge in itself. Perhaps this makes it more clear. If not, to be honest, I don't know what else to say.

[Flail]

Your view of presuppositionalism sounds very close to Reformed epistemology, in fact, nearly identical.

No surprise as presuppositionalist thinkers were all reformed, and they are kind of shades of the same gradient.

I disagree with your critique of nihilism. You seem to be saying that a reduction of knowledge, morality, etc. to human constructs is unsatisfactory, but you don't give a reason beyond your own aesthetic feeling. Why is that?

Also, the statement that "X does not exist" / "X is socially constructed" / "X is a form of power" still explains X, offering both explanatory power and scope. In this sense, I reiterate that nihilism is on par with RE / Christian presuppositionalism, offering a sound counterexample.

I suppose I took as obvious what must not be.

I'll begin with an analogy. Let's say you're a fruit farmer who grows apples. You are part of an agrarian society which is small but economically strong, but which depends almost entirely on the exports of your society's fruit crop for survival. You eat fruit, your festivals revolve around fruit. The stories of your culture and taught in your history class relates to wise fruit farmers of the past, or to men who fought to defend the fruit farms against invaders. Then one day, a traveling philosopher comes to town and begins to teach that trees don't exist. They are illusions, necessarily constructed by the human mind as a result of solar radiation interacting with the dust particles of the air.

How would you respond to such a man? Of course, it would seem the easiest answer would be to say, "From whence, then, came this fruit?" The man, if logically consistent, would have to claim that illusionary trees could not produce real fruit, and thus the fruit must be illusionary as well. Our next recourse, then, would be to suggest that our entire agrarian society was based upon the fruit which this man denied existed! It is the basis for our social interactions, our economy, our history and culture. If the man still denied the fruit, it would seem obvious that his theory was inadequate at explaining everything we actually know. Of course, we could never possibly convince him that trees existed, if he was so committed to that presupposition as to re-interpret evidence to the contrary. However, it would seem quite obvious that his teachings should not have an effect on our fruit growing agrarian society. I do suppose it would still be quite possible that people would be duped.

I see nihilism at work in our world as on par with the fruit denying salesman in the agrarian world. We live in a civilization which is operates based on the idea that our knowledge is actually knowledge. When we grow up in school, we do so believing that we are learning the truth about things, or at least a shadow of it. We proceed to college to become experts in a specific field. We take jobs which assume our expertise corresponds to something real in the world, which makes our expertise useful and worth money. When we are sick, we visit the doctor, assuming that they actually know something about the body. When our car breaks down, we go see a mechanic, assuming they actually know something about how our cars work and how to fix them. In our free time, we debate on debatingchristianity.com, assuming that we can learn things about our own religion and about other religions, and that we can assess the truth of various viewpoints. And so forth and so on.

But the nihilist says this isn't knowledge. There is no such thing as knowledge. I suppose then our entire civilization must be built upon a myth. I suppose a sophisticated nihilist could claim that only metaphysical knowledge was illusory, but (1) that would be a weak form of nihilism, far weaker than the nihilists I have read express; and (2) I believe the necessity of metaphysics could still be, with some labor, demonstrated.

But let's just take this man-on-the-street nihilism which claims no knowledge. Can we really accept that as explaining the entire scope of our experience, our lives, and our civilization? Do we really know nothing more about truth than when we enrolled in kindergarden? Does the doctor help us overcome pneumonia, or remove our tonsils, or vaccinate us out of pure luck, or does he actually know something? Does our mechanic keep getting lucky in fixing our car? Is it all a ploy for power? Is our time here really nothing more than shouting at one another at the top of our lungs without any hope of discovering truth, as truth itself doesn't exist?

If you really want to be the ubermensch, not beholden to the power of another, then I suggest you rewrite for yourself everything you know. Fix your own car. Operate on your own body. Leave debatingchristianity and start spending that time investing in the stock market or robbing people or something.

But otherwise, it would seem as if you live as if knowledge and truth seem to be real. This is called verisimilitude: the appearance of truth. Can nihilism explain verisimilitude? Can it explain our cumulative life experience at all?

I had thought that it was obvious that explaining the origins of knowledge in power was quite different from explaining knowledge in itself. Perhaps this makes it more clear. If not, to be honest, I don't know what else to say.

I don't view nihilism as you seem to view it. To my mind it refers to the notion that life is indeed empty and meaningless 'except to the extent we add or detract'. It's up to us to paint that blank canvass without presupposing too much, particularly presupposing not just any Gods and any moral precepts, but particular ones which require indoctrination and superstition rather than evidence. Nihilism doesn't deny knowledge, but rather denies it's certainty 'as' knowledge. Nihilism, ignosticism and skepticism seem to go hand in hand in dealing with reality, accepting what appears with evidence tentatively and only provisionally, always open to further investigation and discovery.

[theopoesis]

I don't view nihilism as you seem to view it. To my mind it refers to the notion that life is indeed empty and meaningless 'except to the extent we add or detract'. It's up to us to paint that blank canvass without presupposing too much, particularly presupposing not just any Gods and any moral precepts, but particular ones which require indoctrination and superstition rather than evidence. Nihilism doesn't deny knowledge, but rather denies it's certainty 'as' knowledge. Nihilism, ignosticism and skepticism seem to go hand in hand in dealing with reality, accepting what appears with evidence tentatively and only provisionally, always open to further investigation and discovery.

Yes, it seems you are describing existential nihilism, whereas I was addressing epistemological nihilism.

[Haven]

Theopoesis: I see your points on the failures of a worldview using epistemological nihilism.

I was advancing nihilism only as a counter to your brand of (Reformed?) presuppositionalism. In actuality, I hold to a weak foundationalist / internalist epistemology as part of a larger Christian atheist / Humanist / metaphysical naturalist worldview. Such a worldview can, for the most part, account for knowledge, aesthetics, morality, and truth.