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?

[His Name Is John]

I think they are fine as a certain type of apologetics.

A type of apologetics which tells believers that it is ok to stay a believer, rather than convince atheists that their view is correct.

Many of the new apologetic books are against the New Atheist movement, and as their books are filled with attacks on religion and Christianity, rather than answering the question 'does God exist' the replies focus on why actually said attacks are largely unfounded, rather than trying to prove God does exist.

Taking a presumption of God's existance is fine if arguing that the idea of a Christian God is logically coherent. However it does not prove God's existance (and indeed it does not try to). I think it is more an answer to attacks against Christian views of God and religion rather than giving reasons why you should believe in the Christian God.

However I wish there were several other Christian apologists who argued for the existence of God and then from there built up to Christian ideals and practices (Lewis does this a bit in Mere Christianity).

[Haven]

I think they are fine as a certain type of apologetics.

A type of apologetics which tells believers that it is ok to stay a believer, rather than convince atheists that their view is correct.

I agree (as much as an atheist can agree ), such approaches are fine for "preaching to the converted," but useless when debating a skeptic. I'm certainly not going to accept theism based on a presuppositional approach.

Many of the new apologetic books are against the New Atheist movement, and as their books are filled with attacks on religion and Christianity, rather than answering the question 'does God exist' the replies focus on why actually said attacks are largely unfounded, rather than trying to prove God does exist.

True, and this is one reason why I feel the theist-atheist discourse has declined as of late. The "New Atheists" are doing rational thought a disservice with their unfounded attacks on religion.

Taking a presumption of God's existance is fine if arguing that the idea of a Christian God is logically coherent. However it does not prove God's existance (and indeed it does not try to). I think it is more an answer to attacks against Christian views of God and religion rather than giving reasons why you should believe in the Christian God.

A true presuppositionalist would disagree with you. Instead, she would say that the presuppositional approach is the only way of defending Christianity and that all other approaches (evidentialist, empiricist, rationalist, etc.) are invalid because they fail to account for the preconditions of knowledge.

However I wish there were several other Christian apologists who argued for the existence of God and then from there built up to Christian ideals and practices (Lewis does this a bit in Mere Christianity).

I agree.

[His Name Is John]

I agree (as much as an atheist can agree ), such approaches are fine for "preaching to the converted," but useless when debating a skeptic. I'm certainly not going to accept theism based on a presuppositional approach.

I think the problem is with this approach it presumes that the burden of proof is on atheists, rather than on them. Thus removing the atheists 'proof' means you revert back to Christianity.

I guess you could argue that the burden of proof does fall upon hard atheists, but most people would agree that it falls on the theists, and that the natural position is agnostic atheism.

True, and this is one reason why I feel the theist-atheist discourse has declined as of late. The "New Atheists" are doing rational thought a disservice with their unfounded attacks on religion.

I think it has made the Christian theists wake up though. People are interested in the discussion now (perhaps more than ever before) and when there is a demand, both sides will step up.

I honestly do think that Dawkins and his buddies will go down in history as a sad time for atheism, when it resorted to insults and ridicule rather than rational debate.

A true presuppositionalist would disagree with you. Instead, she would say that the presuppositional approach is the only way of defending Christianity and that all other approaches (evidentialist, empiricist, rationalist, etc.) are invalid because they fail to account for the preconditions of knowledge.

I have never met someone who says a presuppositional approach is the only way of defending Christianity. That seems a very strange position to take in any case, so I am happy if they disagree with me .

I agree.

We seem to agree on rather a lot don't we

I want more arguments for the existence of God from top class philosophers and theologians. Although I do thoroughly enjoy reading a lot of the responses to New Atheism (Why God Wont Go Away by McGrath is a highlight for me), I don't think it can stand alone on its own two feet against atheism, and skeptisim in general.

[pax]

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?

I always was taught that apologia meant "the reason for", and it does involve a lot of other disciplines. Consider how much physics is involved in the great works of Saint Thomas Aquinas.

Any debate, then, must center on the reason for what a person holds to be true, not the actual belief the person holds. If the reasons for the belief cannot be shown to be false, then the belief itself cannot assailed.

So, what happens when dogmatists meet to debate their dogmas? Unless they hold the same dogmas there will never be any point for them debating. In fact, there will not even be a debate. All that will transpire can be summed us as such:

DOGAMTIST #1: "I am right and you are wrong."

DOGMATIST #2: "I am right and you are wrong."

Ad infinitum.

Ergo, we should not debate our dogmas, but the reasons why we hold to those dogmas. This is also why the terms "creationism" and "evolutionism" are helpful. They admit of those who hold them being dogmatists.

Now that you have inspired me to give this matter careful thought, two choices stand before me:

1). to go forth and debate dogma to dogma, or

2). to go forth and discover the reason why someone holds to their dogma and seek to engage them in debate on those matters alone.

Let us pray that I take the wiser road.

[Bust Nak]

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?

There is good presuppositional apologetics and there is bad presuppositional apologetics.

Good apologetics compare the presupposition of the different camp, and seeks to point out internal inconsistency in other world view. I have no problem with this approach. I rather like having my view challenged.

Then there is bad presuppositional apologetics. Which is indeed no more than circular reasoning. The worse argument I've seen states outright God exist and is the source of logic, any dispute of that claim is dismissed as self defeating because one cannot use logic without affirming God's existence.

[His Name Is John]

Then there is bad presuppositional apologetics. Which is indeed no more than circular reasoning. The worse argument I've seen states outright God exist and is the source of logic, any dispute of that claim is dismissed as self defeating because one cannot use logic without affirming God's existence.

Arguments like:

"God must exists because... well because he must exist!"

Make me ashamed.

I think the wider Church have really dropped the ball in educated their members, no wonder some people shout indoctrination when people believe things simply because they were brought up believing them.

[pax]

Then there is bad presuppositional apologetics. Which is indeed no more than circular reasoning. The worse argument I've seen states outright God exist and is the source of logic, any dispute of that claim is dismissed as self defeating because one cannot use logic without affirming God's existence.

Arguments like:

"God must exists because... well because he must exist!"

Make me ashamed.

I think the wider Church have really dropped the ball in educated their members, no wonder some people shout indoctrination when people believe things simply because they were brought up believing them.

Parents are the first educators of their children. That the parents instill their own beliefs in their children is a natural occurance. This is proper indoctrination. When the State indoctrinates, then the State has gone way past its intended purpose, which is to protect the lives and the rights of its citizens, one of the primary rights of parents being to educate their own children.

But, wow, it only took one page for this to become a god-bashing thread. I am impressed. Production levels are definitely on the rise. Everybody gets a Christmas bonus this year!

[FinalEnigma]

As the OP noted, presuppoosing your own conclusion in order to prove that same conclusion is the logical fallacy of begging the question, and therefore renders the argument unsound and invalid by definition. This is inarguable.

However, as has also been said, using it to reassure believers on particular points/against particular attacks is not a logical fallacy, because you aren't trying to prove God by assuming God, you are trying to prove something else by assuming God, which is logically valid.

My conclusion from this is that it is simply a waste of time to debate people using this tactic unless you are debating a believer, or defending a point of your faith that has been challenged.

[His Name Is John]

Parents are the first educators of their children. That the parents instill their own beliefs in their children is a natural occurance. This is proper indoctrination. When the State indoctrinates, then the State has gone way past its intended purpose, which is to protect the lives and the rights of its citizens, one of the primary rights of parents being to educate their own children.

Of course, but they should not teach the law / rules, without teaching the why. That is what I take issue with. The majority of people who leave the Church do so because they don't undertand it or the answers it gives to their questions.

But, wow, it only took one page for this to become a god-bashing thread. I am impressed. Production levels are definitely on the rise. Everybody gets a Christmas bonus this year!

How is this a god-bashing thread?