The presuppositional apologist, and I would use that term lightly, because as I see it, the presuppositionalist makes it more difficult for an apologist to actually work, supposes that knowledge is first. John Frame defines it as,
a belief that takes precedence over another and therefore serves as a criterion for another. An ultimate presupposition is a belief over which no other takes precedence. For a Christian, the content of Scripture must serve as his ultimate presupposition…. This doctrine is merely the outworking of the lordship of God in the area of human thought. It merely applies the doctrine of scriptural infallibility to the realm of knowing
They have thus confused the order of know with the order of being. In other words, for them, it is not God who comes first, but the body of knowledge. As someone pointed out, this form of apologetics is a conclusion looking for a hypothesis. It is, as even presuppositionalists know, circular and thus, illogical. Knowledge is linear. Knowledge begins with God and doesn’t not end with him. Yet, Van Till and Frame, among others, would have us build our faith only on statements which support one another with no other beginning point than their own set point of what they understand as truth. In other words, the merry-go-round which is presuppositionalism is not based on reality, but only on what the apologist as created to serve as his or her world. Their world, then, is self-contained and outside of God because for them, their epistemology has been removed and established as the only thing which they accept as authoritative. It is no more subjected to the mythical Lordship of Christ than the Buddhist.
Frankly, I agree with Karl Barth. Apologetics is useless and the more presuppositional they are, the more useless they are. When we feel we must infer something upon Scripture, then we are denying the authority of Scripture.
For more responses, see here.
Related articles
- Book Recommendation: The Comical Doctrine (zwingliusredivivus.wordpress.com)
- Van Til (thephilosophyofscience.wordpress.com)
Joel Landon Watts is a Masters of Theological Studies student with a focus in Mimetic Criticism of the Gospel of Mark. His interests include exploring the role of mimesis in human civilization, specifically in the study of religion and media, as well as science fiction and the way in which it has allowed mythology to be explored in light of scientific ideals of the past century. Currently, he is a TA for Old Testament at United Theological Seminary under Dr. Vivian Johnson, Associate Professor of Old Testament. His first book, Rhetorical Strategies of the Evangelist: Mimetic Criticism of the Gospel of Mark, is expected to be published by Wipf and Stock early next year. He is currently co-editing a book on moving from Fear to Faith (Energion, 2013).
Does this mean that you no longer believe that God is the source of all knowledge?
Jason, God is the source of all knowledge, whether it is acknowledged or not, but… If he is, he doesn’t need us creating false arguments and using human reasoning to state it. Presuppositionalists, I fear, are doing more to hurt the image of God than the angry atheists.
Joel,
To this point you’ve not truly understood the presuppositionalists’ arguments. That’s why I asked the question.
Furthermore, to state the damage that they do is simply wrong. It is a pitiful way to try to advance an argument. Let’s just have reasoned arguments. And don’t bring in circularity, because the person who depends on his own reason has to use only his own reason to prove that reason is the way we can know anything. It is the same with evidentialism and empiricism, each has to assume those things to prove those things. Arguing against circularity is a red herring.
Not only so, but you need to understand that your quote does not give the context of the whole argument, neither does your attached pdf truly give as much support to you as you think.
You should also consider that all presuppositionalists do not agree with Van Til and Frame on everything. It is an over generalization to lump everyone in the presuppositionalist camp together and state “this is what they do.”
I wish you would take seriously what I’m stating to you,because your logical fallacies make reasoning with you next to impossible.
Wait….
So one can advance the argument by saying that one doesn’t understand it? Jason, I hate to tell you this, but I understand it completely.
How can you have reasoned arguments when the only reason available to presups are their own? They reject anything that they disagree with because to take out one part, well, as Frame suggested, is to upend the entire house of cards.
Actually, the problem of circularity is acknowledged by Frame and other Presups. By suggesting that it is a red herring serves to suggest that you might not know exactly what presup is… Frame even tries to provide answers to it for other presups because he recognizes that it is a problem.
Jason, I wish you would take seriously what I’m stating to you, because your logical fallacies make reasoning with you next to impossible. Presup is one of the largest logical fallacy available today.
Circularity is dealt with, but it is a red herring to bring it up. Do you know what a red herring is? Do you know what a logical fallacy is? I think not.
Everyone reasons in a circular fashion when it comes to their fundamental view of epistemology. Everyone. Joel Watts included.
You have shown no logical fallacies in what I have stated to you, Joel. None. That’s the issue. I don’t think you realize what you’re doing is simply wrong. You are misrepresenting presuppositionalists, over generalizing, and throwing up red herrings and straw men; yet you claim that I’m committing the fallacies. The problem is that every time I mention a fallacy, you throw it back at me while showing that you don’t understand the meaning of the particular fallacy that I mention.
To tell me that I don’t understand presuppositionalists is to tell a Southern boy that he doesn’t know what grits taste like.
I take what you say seriously, because I dislike intellectual dishonesty and logical fallacies. Sadly, you refuse to accept that Joel has erred; but you do state that presuppositionalists hold to the view that only they are right. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
Finally, you cannot possibly understand presuppositionalism to call it a logical fallacy. In fact, to call it that shows that you don’t understand logical fallacies because, if you did, you could name the particular fallacy committed by presuppositionalism.
It’s your blog and your life. Believe what you wish, but stop misrepresenting those with whom you disagree. It’s simply not honest.
Oh wow…
Sorry, Jason, but circularity has not be dealt with. Just because some have accepted that it exists and are trying to develop answers (which, by the way, is more circular reasoning), doesn’t mean it has been dealt with. Further, I appreciate your attempt at calling me ignorant, but my friend, I won’t bite.
Jason – the idea that every has presuppositions is a straw man, allowing that since everyone has presuppositions, then it is only left to determine which presuppositions are right. Unfortunately, the reality is, is that not everyone has presuppositions and it is quite false to suggest otherwise.
How am I misrepresenting presuppositionalists when I quote their own words? Odd…. Presuppositonalism is a logical fallacy in of itself. It is based only on circular logic, which the apologists have themselves allowed.
Well, tell me then, what does grits taste like?
Well, lets see…. as I have said before – presup is circular reasoning, a logical fallacy. See, I’ve named it again. Again.
Further – here is another logical fallacy –
In other words, the circle is this – to understand presup is to get it. To get it, you have to understand it. If you don’t get it, you must not understand it. Thus, a logical fallacy. Circular reasoning is a recognize formal logical fallacy. It is recognized that presup is based on circular reasoning.
As Frame says, “But are we not still forced to say, ‘God exists (presupposition), therefore God exists (conclusion),’ and isn’t that argument clearly circular? Yes, in a way. But that is unavoidable for any system, any worldview. One cannot argue for an ultimate standard by appealing to a different standard. That would be inconsistent.” (Five Views on Apologetics, p217)
William Lane Craig says, “Presuppositionalism commits the informal fallacy of begging the question, for it advocates presupposing the truth of Christian theism in order to prove Christian theism. It is difficult to imagine how anyone could with a straight face think to show theism to be true by reasoning, ‘God exists, therefore God exists.’ A Christian theist himself will deny that question-begging arguments prove anything.” (p233)
In the same book, Habermas shows that Frame commits the logical fallacy of a false analogy.
Thus, as other apologists note, and even Frame notes, Presup is based on circular reasoning which is a logical fallacy, and includes other such fallacies.
Sorry, Jason, but it seems that the great body of evidence, admitted to by even the Presups, is that it is a form of circular reasoning.
And no, not everyone starts with presuppositions.
And don’t even get me started with Frame’s notion of Scripture as special revelation.
Again, I would urge Barth. God does not need us to infer anything upon either himself or Scripture. When we do, we deny it the authority it is supposed to have.
By the way, you may wish to put Frame’s quote in quotes, as well as in context, and provide a link to where you found it.
It would be helpful in the discussion.
It is in quotes… You know, the block quotes.
John M. Frame (1987). The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God (Theology of Lordship). Philadelphia: Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing Co…
Problem with the idea that there is a doctrine of the knowledge of God is that it is not found in Scripture. God is.
Block quotes not showing up in my browser. That’s why I asked.
not a problem
What page.
[...] And Epistemology 12.08.2011 · Posted in apologetics, Bible, Inerrancy, Scripture Joel claims that presuppositionalists make God second to epistemology. That statement is fallacious. In [...]
Joel,
By no means am I slurring about your intelligence. I’m simply saying that circularity is not always wrong. It cannot be, because we all must use it to form our basic epistemology. You do not recognize your fallacious over generalizing and red herrings. Thus, there is a problem with the issue.
As far as begging the question, no. That is errant, too. It is not begging the question. I demonstrated that in my first post related to presuppositions and inerrancy. What do I get? Run around, mockery, and straw men. I do not get logical arguments.
I have no interest in Barth. Scripture is of higher authority than he, and he obviously did not accept that. That is the essence of this whole discussion, the authority of Scripture. It is also something that is reasonably accepted.
Have your blog and have your beliefs, but I say again that you must honestly desist from the misrepresentations. If you wish to understand presuppositionalism, read more of it with a willingness to learn. At least you could then present an argument against it. As it is, you obviously are reading with a desire to counter it. How intellectually honest is that? I think you know the answer to that.
Jason,
Okay… so are all logical fallacies wrong? It seems that you can throw that charge around but you are okay with them when they suit you.
There are no red herrings, Jason. Facts are facts. To note what even Presups note is not a red herring.
In other words, Jason, you are your own authority about what constitutes truth. Umm… odd….
I don’t think you know what you are talking about when you mention the stuff about Barth.
Ahhh… more straw men. Because I don’t agree with presup, well, then, I guess I must not be willing to learn. I think that is intellectually dishonest, Jason.
I think we’re talking past each other on most of this. I have no intentions of being uncharitable, and I can see where it seems that I am doing just the opposite.
I was not claiming that you are not willing to learn. I’m simply stating that it appears that you only desire to counter presup arguments as you read about presup apologetics.
I’m going to leave this discussion now. Neither of us is doing anything other than getting irritated with the other, and that will do us no good.
Thicket skin…
I once entered into a pun contest with about a hundred other people.
Not pun in ten won.
dude, that’s awful….