|
|
| |
|
| by Editor Erik Wait |
| |
 |
| |
We have thus far been looking at various schools of apologetics and the problems with the traditional methods of arguing for God’s existence. But we now turn to the place of evidences within Presuppositionalism even though Evidentialism typically in a straw-man like fashion says that Presuppositionalism has no places for evidences. In addition, Evidentialists have falsely thought that they do not have presuppositions and that they are merely arguing from neutrality in their examination of and arguing from evidences. [73] Both of these notions are thoroughly mistaken for Presuppositionalism argues that EVERYTHING is an evidence for God for apart from the Christian world view one cannot make sense of ANYTHING. In contrast to the Evidentialist’s assertion about Van Til he writes:
“The greater the amount of detailed study and the more carefully such study is undertaken, the more truly Christian will the method be. It is important to bring out this point in order to help remove the common misunderstanding that Christianity is opposed to FACTUAL INVESTIGATION.” [75]
”What shall be the attitude of the orthodox believer with respect to this? Shall he be an OBSCURANTIST and hold to the doctrine of authority of the Scripture though he knows it can empirically be shown to be contrary to the facts of Scripture themselves? It goes without saying that such should not be his attitude.” [76]
“The Christian position is certainly not opposed to EXPERIMENTATION AND OBSERVATION... It is quite commonly held that we cannot accept anything that is not the result of a sound scientific methodology. With this we can as Christians heartily agree.” [77]
“Surely the Christian, who believes in the doctrine of creation, cannot share the Greek depreciation of the things of the SENSE WORLD. Depreciation of that sense world inevitably leads to a depreciation of many of the important facts of historic Christianity which took place in the sense world. The Bible does not rule out every form of empiricism any more than it rules out every form of A PRIORI reasoning.” [78]
“Now this approach from the bottom to the top, from the particular to the general, is the INDUCTIVE ASPECT of the method of implication.... All agree that the immediate starting point must be that of our everyday EXPERIENCE and the "facts" that are most close at hand... But the favorite charge against us is that we are... employing the deductive method. Our opponents are thoughtlessly identifying our method with the Greek method of deduction... We need only to observe that A PRIORI reasoning, and A POSTERIORI reasoning, are equally anti-Christian, if these terms are understood in their historical sense... On the other hand, if God is recognized as the only and the final explanation of any and every fact, neither the inductive nor the deductive method can any longer be used to the exclusion of the other.” [79]
“Every bit of historical investigation, whether it be in the directly biblical field, archaeology, or in general history is bound to confirm the truth of the claims of the Christian position... A really fruitful historical apologetic argues that every fact IS and MUST BE such as proves the truth of the Christian theistic position.” [80]
“Far from being indifferent or antagonistic to inductive and empirical science, Van Til has devoted much of his scholarly labors to the constructive analysis of the philosophy of science. He has always insisted that Christians relate their faith positively to science and history, finding unequivocal evidence, indeed a definite demand, for distinctively Christian conclusions in all inductive study of the facts themselves.” [81]
“On the other hand he has persistently and apologetically attacked unbelieving philosophies on the telling ground that they render inductive science impossible.” [82]
The above quotes prove to the Evidentialist that he was not opposed to evidences to which they would then say, “Why then does Van Til then oppose the historical arguments for the resurrection?” to which Van Til responds, “I do not reject the theistic proofs... historical apologetics is absolutely necessary and indispensable," [83] and states that he would therefore engage in historical apologetics. However, Van Til’s use of evidences is not in the scheme of neutrality but as interpreted in the Christian world view. In addition, while many others worked within developing historical evidences Van Til stated that he would work in other fields (philosophy) to which he was better suited. The contention therefore is with EvidentialISM (a school of apologetics) not the evidences themselves. In other words, it is the way in which Evidentialism uses evidences (in an attempted neutral fashion which bows to the autonomy of man) that he opposed.
According to Bahnsen there are four uses for empirical evidences in Presuppositionalism: First, historical evidences are useful in building the confidence of believers. They offer the answers to God’s children in dealing with particular arguments offered by skeptics. Second, empirical evidences can be used to embarrass unbeliever’s sarcasm in their demeaning of the Bible with the “scientific” and historical claims. Thus they silence the empirical claims of the skeptic. Third, the empirical evidences also help clear away the debris of intellectual prejudices held by so many unbelievers. Fourth, used in the proper can display to the willing unbeliever the wonder of God as the original creator, sustainer, and redeemer.
According to Scripture, evidences cannot stand alone as indispensable and valuable as they are it would be a misconception to think that evidences cannot stand alone as an apologetic. The Bible shows us what people will think about the observed evidence is effected by certain non-observational beliefs. In Matthew 28:17 the resurrected Christ is observed but it was effected by certain non-observational beliefs for it says, “...but some were doubtful.”
Since the presuppositionalist is not opposed to evidences it is on the basis of certain philosophical (theological) problems that he rejects Evidentialism. The Evidentialist seeks to have the unbeliever approach the facts of Christianity in a neutral fashion to see the probability of its truth. And according to the Evidentialist no presuppositions are suppose to intrude into the reasoning of the believer and unbeliever as they “open mindedly” approach the particulars of the world and of history. But in taking such an approach, such as taking the resurrection of Christ as a historical datum, apologists have actually fallen prey to many detailed errors in their outworking of a non-presuppositional argument.
There are seven important things to remember concerning facts: First, all observation and use of facts are theory laden. Second, acceptance and interpretation of what is factual is not determined by sense perception alone but by an interaction with one’s fundamental philosophical convictions. Third, empirical and inductive study in itself has in itself certain preconditions which cannot be accounted for except in the presupposition of Christianity. Fourth, what is assumed by the non-Christian system of empiricism and induction contradicts Biblical teaching and renders inductive reasoning impossible on philosophical principle. Fifth, unbelievers, like believers, are not unbiased in motive and goal or completely open minded. Sixth, if the unbeliever’s presuppositions are not challenged, and he holds tenaciously to them, he cannot for very good reason refuse to be driven from his position based on empirical evidences alone. Finally, because the believer’s intellectual basis for certainty about the claims of Christianity is broader than his limited and fallible reflections upon the incomplete empirical pool of indicators alone, those claims should not be presented as probably true.
Van Til states, “For any fact to be a fact at all it must be a revelational fact.” While the Presuppositionalists believes in evidences he argues that it is the philosophical context in which the facts can be useful that determines that they are forceful. Without recognizing presuppositions and their epistemological necessity the apologist cannot make sense out of his own argumentation for apart from the Christian world view the resurrection of Christ is merely another story for Ripley’s “Believe it or Not.”
A Checklist For Reasoning With Unbelievers
At this point we will look at the practice of applying Presuppositional Apologetics as answers, “What is the procedure for Presuppositional Apologetics?” In having a discussion with an unbeliever we want to look for four things in particular: First, prejudicial conjectures: Specifically you want to be on the look out for arbitrariness and inconsistency in what the unbeliever is arguing. According to Bahnsen, 80% of the task of arguing is looking out for the unbeliever saying whatever he wants to say without justification. To unbelievers who argue this way we must not tire of pointing out that their arguments are based on conjecture and not upon research and reason. This type of error is the typical flippant statements that are so readily voiced and believed without a moment of reflection, “The Bible is so old and has been copied so many times you can’t trust it.” The person who makes such a statement does so without having ever entering the field of textual criticism and merely makes such statements because they seem reasonable to the unbeliever. Second, unargued philosophical bias: The difference between first and this error is that here the there are underlying philosophical presuppositions that are very important which have been unargued and therefore not justified. Thus the unbeliever has an unargued philosophical bias which need to be addressed such as the common presupposition that, “Science is empiricism and thus only empiricism can be called science. Thus since God cannot be observed empirically science and religion have nothing in common and theistic science is an oxymoron.” At this point we need to address the basic philosophical prejudices of the critic, such as his exaltation of empiricism as true science, which are taken for granted rather than openly acknowledged in some way, argued for, and supported. Third, we need to look for the dialectical tension of the unbeliever (the incoherence of his world view): All non-Christian world views have a dialectical tension of rationalism/irrationalism. For example, the materialist (empiricist) who can’t account for the immaterial (such as the laws of logic) and yet he uses them in his arguments for materialism. The rationalist who can’t account for anything outside his own mind and the existentialist whose truth is based on his experience and perception and yet will argue that they are universally true. Finally, we ned to point to the failure of the unbeliever to provide the necessary preconditions for intelligibility: Ask, “What are the necessary preconditions for a valid epistemology, science, morality etc.?” and show how the unbeliever’s world view must borrow from the Christian world view in order to operate.
Clarification of Worldviews
As stated before, in the apologetical task we are concerned with entire worldviews and not merely the particulars. Thus we are concerned with their foundations, their presuppositions, and we argue Christianity as a whole against all opposing worldviews though we may be only able to discuss one aspect of the Christian worldview at a time. According to Bahnsen one can classify world religions into three categories: Transcendent mysticism, immanent moralism and Pseudo-Christian and Parasitic Religions
Transcendent mysticism places emphasis on a belief that something exceeds man’s perceptions and rationality. Thus it tends to be mystical and existential and often irrational. Thus they often proclaim an ignorance of reality because they assert that it is beyond us (Hinduism, Christian-Science).
Immanent moralism are those that are “Here and now” religions.- The emphasis is on this life and thus tend to be moralistic (Buddhism, Confucius). While transcendent mysticism destroys logic immanent moralism has arbitrary moral authorities.
Pseudo-Christian and Parasitic Religions (Biblical counterfeits) are religions are deviations from the true religion in that they claim to be based on the Bible. These counterfeits tend to be either polytheistic (Mormons), Unitarian (J.W.s, Arians, Muslims) or Pseudo-messianic (Moonies).
For a worldview to be valid it must simultaneously explain and integrate the following questions: First, “How do you KNOW what you are claiming?” What is your epistemology? ALL apologetical situations are, at their core, a matter of how we account, justify, what we know and believe. Thus whether we are dialoguing with an atheist, a Muslim, a Hindu, or a member of a religious cut we are dealing with their assertion “I believe in X, and I know it to be true because of Y.” At the center of their assertion is their clam to know it to be true thus epistemology (one’s theory of knowledge and how we know things) is a central issue. Second, “How do you account for logic?” There is a demand for rationality, reason, for why you believe what you believe. Third, “How do you account for scientific inference and the uniformity of nature?” Fourth, “How do you account for abstract concepts and principles?” Fifth, “How do you account for prescriptions, moral absolutes?” Sixth, “How do you account for mental freedom?” The fact that man’s mind is not merely subject to biology and genetics? Finally, “How do you account for human dignity, individuality and uniqueness?”
What is it about Christianity that it uniquely simultaneously can provide justifiable answers to the above questions? Often Christians who get a basic grasp on the presuppositional method run into seemingly theoretical problems with presuppositional apologetics. Why can’t someone merely assert that logic is one’s necessary transcendental precondition? Answer: How does logic (which is immaterial) get into your mind (which is material). Second, we are not arguing merely for logic but an entire worldview which must account for ALL of 1-7 above, not merely logic. Logic by itself is not an entire worldview (contra the Vulcans in Star Trek).
|
|
