Alive Forums - Apoloigetics -Evidentialism vs Presuppositionalism

« Apoloigetics -Evidentialism vs Presuppositionalism »

Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
Nov 26, 2009, 12:02am

Alive Forums :: Apologetics :: Defending Christianity :: Apoloigetics -Evidentialism vs Presuppositionalism

Author

Topic: Apoloigetics -Evidentialism vs Presuppositionalism (Read 425 times)

Jesusfreak
Administrator

member is offline

[avatar]

Joined: Jan 2004
Gender: Male

Posts: 2,891
Location: Indiana, USA

Apoloigetics -Evidentialism vs Presuppositionalism
« Thread Started on Dec 4, 2004, 8:28pm »

I want to deal briefly with the difference between evidentialism and presuppositionalism. In a nutshell, evidentialism proposes that our faith is reasonable, since it is supported by a predominance of evidence, or objective data which would logically infer the truth of that in which we believe. It seeks to establish a reasonable correllation between what is asserted to be true and data which we conventionally accept as true, or evidence. In this sense, it is essentially deductive in nature (to be accurate, deductive reasoning is limited only to necessary conclusion, hence evidentialism is, deductive/inductive).

One remembers the famous quotation written for the character Sherlock Holmes by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle: "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." As Sherlock Holmes began with a crime scene—an accomplished fact—and deduced an explanation based on keen observation of related detail, Josh McDowell begins by considering a question, such as "Did the resurrection of Jesus Christ really occur?". He then lays out what are generally accepted as the facts, and proposes various possible explanations for them, analyzing the probability of each. Having considered alternate explanations, Josh concludes that the explanation with a reasonable probability of being true—which appears to best or most satisfactorily explain the facts as we know them, given all evidence available to us—is that Jesus did, in fact, rise from the dead as explained in the New Testament. He does similar work with issues such as the identity of Jesus Christ in relationship to the Messianic prophecies of the Old Testament and the trustworthiness of the canon of scripture. His work can be very helpful, especially to the Christian, in establishing a reasonable defense of his or her faith.

Nevertheless, one might argue that to some extent, evidentialism can be considered somewhat circular. One must, in fact, accept the essential character of the supporting data Josh McDowell proposes to be "evidence". In a post-modern culture, this is increasingly difficult. In physics, Newton's paradigm of classical mechanics, in its simplest sense, argues that given an instance in which one object acts on another, every action by one induces and equal and opposite reaction in the other. This was later to be supplanted by Einstein's Theory of Relativity, which proposed to describe the attributes of systems moving at high velocity approaching the speed of light. Einstein was the father of relativistic mechanics (as described) and quantum mechanics (which deals with the interaction of sub-atomic particles). These theoretical constructs could deduce an effect proportionally greater than its apparent cause, or a reaction (like nuclear fission), that grows exponentially in relationship to the initial action. Causality still pertains, but the understanding of causality has been expanded by a greater knowledge of the complexity of interactions. Or one might say that Newton begged the question by not adequately defining equal. The Theory of Relativity still establishes an equality, but simply recognizes addtional variables.

The new physics appeared to describe phenomena which were not readily apparent or, while theoretically or mathematically possible, could not be easily reproduced at all. However, the recent discovery of sub-atomic particles and the production, though for only nanoseconds, of anti-matter in laboratory surroundings appears to indicate the validity of the assumptions. But this science led to the postulate of parallel universes or realities, and when popularized by such books as The Dancing Wu Li Masters or The Tao of Physics, have had profound and far-reaching effects on our culture's understanding of truth. These books propose an understanding of the universe which is in fact more Hindu in nature. As a result, that to which we might turn as objective evidence which supports our faith decision as rational is called into question. This is not a disagreement as to the veracity of the information we propose, but is more akin to saying that such terms as "veracity" and "objective" data now seem to make little sense. n a world of infinite complexity, variety, and possiblity, what would have been though impossible is now considered more or less probable, based on an infinite timeline. As a result, the extraordinary loses significance, being seen as only one of an infinite number of possible outcomes. The "miraculous" merely becomes the "less probable, but nevertheless possible" event of an essentially irrational, universe. Infinite possibility makes explanation a somewhat superfluous activity. All that we see, or more pertinently, assign "meaning" to, is Maya--illusion--the superimposition of a finite perception on an infinite reality.

It is at this point, in particular, that the presuppositionalim, or, more accurately, the modified presuppostionalism of Francis Schaeffer appears uniquely pertinent and capable.

(Matthew)

Christian Convocation

« Last Edit: Feb 3, 2005, 1:04am by soulfyre »

Link to Post - Back to Top IP:

Logged

Administrator

soulfyre
Moderator

Apologetics Moderator
[image]

member is offline

[avatar]

Proclaim the Good News!

Joined: Oct 2004
Gender: Male

Posts: 15
Location: Wichita, Kansas

Presuppositionalism, pt 1
« Reply #1 on Jan 26, 2005, 3:13am »

In order to understand presuppositionalism, one might begin by picturing in one's mind the famous fresco by Raphael at the Vatican entitled the "School of Athens". Central to the painting are the two philosophers, Plato and Aristotle. Raphael illustrates, with great subtlety, the great tension in philosophy of "the one and the many." The question of "the one and the many" are illustrated in the gestures of the two figures. Plato, pointing upward to the heavens with his index finger gestures as if to emphasize "the one", whereas Aristotle gestures toward the earth using his palm with his fingers outspread, as if to emphasize "the many".

Plato would begin with the "form of the Good", being the ultimate object of knowledge which sheds light on all other forms. He saw the real world as in some sense emanating like shadows from these forms enlightened by the form of the Good. His methodology was based upon this a priori. It would be, in this sense, classically presuppositional. Aristotle, on the other hand (no pun intended), believed knowledge to be derivative or deductive, based upon drawing necessary conclusions from observation of "the many". Aristotle was not strictly deductive, however, because deductive logic is limited to necessary conclusions only. Hence, pure deductive logic can rarely proceed past definition, for its certainty is always limited by its sample. There is no probablity in deductive logic, for one cannot draw probable inferences, only necessary conclusions based strictly upon the sample. Aristotle used deduction and induction. His starting point, however, was the observation of "the many", followed by the derivation, a posteriori, of a description that might then be utilized inductively, or predictively. Plato would argue, however, that Aristotle's process of deduction/induction would be impossible without the illumination of the "form of the good" and the categorization made possible by the forms thus illuminated, of which reality is but the shadow. Hence, the very structure within which reasoning could occur must be an a priori. The a priori is necessary, although not deductively so. It cannot be proven or postulated by the observation of the "facts": rather, it must exist to provide the context in which "facts" have veridical standing, as it were. Without the a priori, proof itself becomes meaningless.

Christian presuppositionalism recognizes Biblical theism as the necessary a priori required for a defense of the faith. Evidence cannot, in fact, "demand a verdict", because aside from an implicit acceptance of the Christian world-view, such evidence is...well...not evidence. Evidence is both derivative and contextual. It only gains argumentative force in relation to an a priori or within a world-view which assigns it value. Data must be assigned value in order to be used to support validity claims. Although there seems to be a certain circularity to this logic, in which one begs the question to engage in its proof, this process is used for many canons of logic which may only be proved if they are, in fact, presupposed (like the law of non-contradiction). Can the validity of the a priori be subsequently challenged? Yes, but it is often a sticky proposition for, as in the case of the Law of Non-contradiction, one must beg the question to dispute the proposition. One must assume the Law of Non-contradiction to deny the Law of Non-contradiction. Nevertheless, it should be subject on some level to falsifiability; that is, there must be, at least in the theoretical sense, data that if correct would invalidate the truth claim of the a priori. Second, an a priori must admit of self-consistency, that is, it cannot support a framwork in which A can at the same time be non-A (note that the Law of Non-contradiction, as it is sometimes called, is generally accepted, a priori, as being necessary to any logical construction). Third, it must provide a consistent basis for observation and categorization (it must both define and predict). To the extent than an a priori is incapable to predicting or describing the data it purports to describe, it must be considered false.

How then does this apply to Christian presuppositionalism? Cornelius Van Til would go so far as to say that a meaningful discussion of Christian evidences cannot be carried on with a non-Christian. The competing a prioris of the two individuals are mutually contradictory and hense mutually exclusive. The competing a prioris allow for the use of similar logical expression, but provide contexts of meaning that are at variance with one another, allowing for no true communitcation. There is a conflict of symbology. Van Til would argue that given this state, we must present the Gospel of Our Lord Jesus Christ, for only by the power of God through his word can the persons heart be effectively enlightened and regeneration take place. The attempt to verify Christian belief in an evidentiary manner, though well-meaning, is to presumably submit the Truth of God to the rational processes of a fallen person, which processes are set against the Truth. And God does not promise to honor our words, but His words; not persuasive speech, but the power of the Gospel. While the logic of this assumption is very tight, I believe that the approach used by Francis Schaeffer is better (please note at this point that Schaeffer was a student of Van Til).

« Last Edit: Jan 26, 2005, 3:27am by soulfyre »

Link to Post - Back to Top IP:

Logged

Matthew (soulfyre)
http://www.soulfyre.org/
http://www.thechristianconvocation.org/

soulfyre
Moderator

Apologetics Moderator
[image]

member is offline

[avatar]

Proclaim the Good News!

Joined: Oct 2004
Gender: Male

Posts: 15
Location: Wichita, Kansas

Presuppositionalism, pt 2
« Reply #2 on Jan 26, 2005, 3:26am »

Francis Schaeffer's implementation of presuppositionalism (sometimes referred to as "modified presuppositionalism", although I think that this is inaccurate, as the presuppositional bases remain the same) addresses what may be considered the "elephant in the room" concerning Van Til's apparent rigidity. Essentially, we communicate with others whose presuppositions are at variance with ours daily on a more or less successful basis. How then can this be true? The answer, of course, is disarmingly simple. While everyone may in essence choose a world-view or presuppositional framework that is manifestly at variance with the Christian world-view, everyone must also live within the reality that God has created. In other words, the only world-view that ultimately "counts" is God's. In order to live with any degree of success in God's created reality, the non-Christian must pragmatically "borrow" from Christianity certain assumptions that are at variance with their own presuppositional framework. Francis Schaeffer's approach was to find these points of tension, and confront the non-Christians with their inconsistencies. A Biblical illustration of this apologetic device is found in Acts 17:22-31, when Paul made his defense to the Epicureans and Stoics at the Areopagus (Mars Hill) . Paul reasoned with the pagan philosophers by attacking the inconsistency of their presuppositions, then interposing the Christian solution to the inconsistency. The result? A few men became followers of Paul and believed.

Are either Francis Schaeffer or Paul arguing, as did Thomas Aquinas, that the reasoning faculties of man are unaffected by the Fall? To quote Paul, "God forbid." Nevertheless, one may argue that it pleases God, who created man as a cognitive being, to incorporate the use of reason in concert with His word and the effectual work of the Holy Spirit as the means by which He has chosen to save individuals. Is it then the effectiveness of reason alone? No. Yet it is a valid and, indeed, important part of evangelism. It was Peter who commanded: "Always be prepared to give an answer [Gk., apologia] to every one who asks you to give reason [Gk., logon] for the hope that you have." [I Peter 3:15b]

One might also add that it is this same assumption--that of a common, irreducible reality that may only be adequately approached with a Christian world-view, yet in which those who do not hold a Christian world-view survive by "borrowing" assumptions--that evidences may be used. To the extent that a person borrows upon Christian presuppositions to assign validity to the "facts" that purportedly support their own beliefs, a Christian may then present evidence that meets or exceeds the litmus test that persons "facts". This creates a dynamic tension not unlike using a queen and a rook in chess to limit the moves of an opponent's king until no moves are left. If the non-Christian rejects Christian evidences whose validity meet or exceed his or her own litmus test, then the heart of the matter is revealed. The issue then does not become one of "reasonableness" or "proof", but one of the fallen will whose natural choice is to rebel against God. This then serves to validate the Christian "hypothesis" that only the Christian world-view adequately fits all the data, addressing both perception and will. And one comes, then, full-circle to the proclamation of the Gospel.

Note, however, that evidentialism cannot stand on its own, because its treatment of the human condition is inadequate. But presuppositionalism may contextually use evidentiary argumentation, having established a presuppositional basis and context in which to do so.

God bless and keep you always,

Matthew (soulfyre)

Link to Post - Back to Top IP:

Logged

Matthew (soulfyre)
http://www.soulfyre.org/
http://www.thechristianconvocation.org/

Click Here To Make This Board Ad-Free

This Board Hosted For FREE By ProBoards
Get Your Own Free Message Boards & Free Forums!