Discussing Presuppositionalism

robert skynner said:

I have recently made a study of Presuppositionalism, something which is sweeping the evangelical world, as evangelicals completely abandon evidence, facts or proof, in support of their faith claims. Kent Hovind (a prominent creationist) is a famous Presuppositionalist. This belief which lies somewhat between fedaism and evidentialism, attacks none Christians are idiots and unworthy of any respect or dialogue as Presuppositionalism claims that only Christians know truth, which does not even need to be defended or proved.

Click to expand...

Your grammatical structure in the last sentence is broken to the point that I don't know what you are saying. It appears that you were editing and cutting. Usually I can piece the intent together but I'm at a loss here.

It's begging the question.

robert skynner said:

I have recently made a study of Presuppositionalism, something which is sweeping the evangelical world, as evangelicals completely abandon evidence, facts or proof, in support of their faith claims. Kent Hovind (a prominent creationist) is a famous Presuppositionalist. This belief, which lies somewhat between fedaism and evidentialism, simply attacks all non-Christians whom they regard as idiots, unworthy and incapable of even comprehending truth, as Presuppositionalism claims that only Christians know truth, which does not even need to be defended or proved.

Presuppositionalists such as Kent Hovind, and others influenced by this form of apologetic, simply attack all non-believers by asking "how do you know that," they demand 100%, total and complete understanding from all non-Christians, to validate non-Christian worldviews, but they themselves (Christians), don't practice this themselves, they merely affirm the Bible and stand back stating that non-Christians cannot even challenge their Christian theism, as the non-believers do not have complete 100% understanding on any topic which is then interpreted as a proof of falsehood! Which goes against the definition of truth as "justified true belief" and not as that plus 100% complete and total knowledge and understanding.

Click to expand...

My understanding of presuppositionalism is that you cannot argue someone into the kingdom. You can answer questions, but your answers will not change the heart. The only One who can do that is the Holy Spirit. So we are to proclaim the Gospel and the Spirit does what He does.

Hammster said:

My understanding of presuppositionalism is that you cannot argue someone into the kingdom. You can answer questions, but your answers will not change the heart. The only One who can do that is the Holy Spirit. So we are to proclaim the Gospel and the Spirit does what He does.

Click to expand...

As used by a particular brand of apologists it goes something like this:
- The only coherent worldview is Christianity,
- You are not a Christian,
- Therefore your worldview is not coherent.

USincognito said:

It's begging the question.

Click to expand...

Presuppositionalists travel in only the best circles.

robert skynner said:

Presupposition does not seek to "argue anyone into the kindgom" (whatever that means), it is simply a rejection of all non-Christian truth claims as unworthy of discussion or refutation. Only the Bible and Christianity is regarded as truth, so if your not a Christian, then your truth claims are rejected without any consideration. This belief is negative, it is a means of dismissing all non-Christian viewpoints and truth claims.

Click to expand...

Well, as a presuppositionalist, I don't even recognize your description. The scripture that we go to most is Romans 1. So while we may dismiss truth claims that go against Christianity, they aren't dismissed in a vacuum. But if Kent Hovind is your example, I can see why you may have that view. I wouldn't use him as an example for much.

James White or Greg Bahnsen would be better examples.

USincognito said:

As used by a particular brand of apologists it goes something like this:
- The only coherent worldview is Christianity,
- You are not a Christian,
- Therefore your worldview is not coherent.

Click to expand...

Um...no. It's the presupposition that unless the Spirit changes your heart, you will not believe the gospel. That's where it starts. However, it's true that the only coherent worldview is Christianity. But that's not the basis for the view. Just the result.

Hammster said:

Um...no. It's the presupposition that unless the Spirit changes your heart, you will not believe the gospel. That's where it starts. However, it's true that the only coherent worldview is Christianity. But that's not the basis for the view. Just the result.

Click to expand...

Perhaps that is your definition, but then again I wasn't talking about you now, was I. That's why I specified:

>> As used by a particular brand of apologists it goes something like this: <<

(bold mine for emphasis)

robert skynner said:

I have recently made a study of Presuppositionalism, something which is sweeping the evangelical world, as evangelicals completely abandon evidence, facts or proof, in support of their faith claims. Kent Hovind (a prominent creationist) is a famous Presuppositionalist. This belief, which lies somewhat between fedaism and evidentialism, simply attacks all non-Christians whom they regard as idiots, unworthy and incapable of even comprehending truth, as Presuppositionalism claims that only Christians know truth, which does not even need to be defended or proved.

Presuppositionalists such as Kent Hovind, and others influenced by this form of apologetic, simply attack all non-believers by asking "how do you know that," they demand 100%, total and complete understanding from all non-Christians, to validate non-Christian worldviews, but they themselves (Christians), don't practice this themselves, they merely affirm the Bible and stand back stating that non-Christians cannot even challenge their Christian theism, as the non-believers do not have complete 100% understanding on any topic which is then interpreted as a proof of falsehood! Which goes against the definition of truth as "justified true belief" and not as that plus 100% complete and total knowledge and understanding.

Click to expand...

It is the extreme logical conclusion of a fideism which has strong roots in Protestantism. When the "Reformers" rejected disciplines like philosophy, natural theology, fundamental theology, and apologetics, they were already planting the seeds of Presuppositionalism.

That said, a more rigorous account of something approaching Presuppositionalism can be found in Alvin Plantinga's "properly basic beliefs." It is also worth noting that the relation of faith-knowledge to natural knowledge is notoriously difficult to pin down and analyze.

robert skynner said:

My apologies, presuppositionalism rejects all non-Christian arguments by asking endless questions such as "are you completely 100% certain about that," when you honestly answer no, truth is defined by the Presuppositionalists not as justified true belief but as complete and 100% total understanding, so they (Hovind et al) then dismiss you. Creationists such as Kent Hovind constantly use this technique, as also does Ray Comfort on occasions, truth is the preserve of the religious as it is claimed that because only God is omniscient, therefore only those people whom he speaks to such as born-again Christians, can answer YES to the question: do you have complete and total knowledge of a particular subject.

Click to expand...

So are you looking for one of them to come on here and defend their position... despite the fact that they won't ever do that? Or are you making a public announcement? Or are you wanting to give the actual justification of Christianity?

Christian apologetic arguments are only as compelling as the truth of their presuppositions.
But our presuppositional framework is shaped by our experience. Therefore, presuppositional frameworks are only as compelling as our spiritual experience--or lack thereof. In effect, that is Paul's point when he writes:
"My speech and my proclamation were not with plausible words of wisdom, but with a demonstration of the Spirit and of power. so that your faith might not rest on human wisdom, but on God's power (1 Corinthians 2:5)."

Here is a testimony of this principle at work. My friend Lloyd had an atheist friend with no interest in religion whatsoever. One day, he was wandering through a crowded mall, when he accidentally bumped into a woman. She braced herself by touching hin with her hand. Then she smiled at him and they went their separate ways. But this atheist now realized that something very odd when happening: he was suddenly becoming obsessed with the possibility of an intimate connection and relationship with God. By the end of the day, he was gloriously converted and is now a radiant Christian.

Time passed, and one day this man saw a picture of Kathryn Kuhlman and recognized her as the woman he bumped into in the mall that faithful day. Kathryn Kuhlman was one of the most effective faith healers of the 20th century. I witnessed her ministry in action twice, both times at the LA Shrine Auditorium, the former center of the Academy Awards ceremony. To get a seat for her meetings in this 9,000 seat auditorium, you needed to show up an hour early.

Kathryn was a blessing machine and her weapon of choice was a healing touch with her right hand. I know a skeptic who was conversing with her after a meeting, when her random gesture knocked him down for the count! She had blessed Lloyd's friend that fateful day in the mall and that touch had changed that atheist's life, even though prior Christian apologetic arguments hadn't made a dent. So the question is: Are there any atheists on this site honest enough to meet God's conditions for a persuasive life-changing encounter with God? Or do you lack the intellectual integrity and curiosity to even care what those conditions happen to be?
Do you insteprefer to be trapped in your myopic scientific worldview with its limited presuppositional framework that cuts you off from self-authenticating spiritual experience?

Once you have such an experience, here is how to view philosophical and theological problems. In the words of St. Augustine and St. Anselm." We do not seek to understand in order to believe; rather we believe in order to understand." In other words, we believe passionately but provisionally--passionately because our intimate connection with God is everything and must be sustained through a total surrender to God, but provisionally in the sense that our new evolving spiritual presuppositional framework must still be open to the possibility that much of what we still believe is misguided and needs regular correction through continued research and critical reflection.

"Here is a testimony..."

I'm presupposing this testimony is a load of manure.

robert skynner said:

Kent Hovind (a prominent creationist) is a famous Presuppositionalist.

Click to expand...

Only since he got out of jail. And only because his equally fraudulent son discovered it recently, thanks to Sye Ten Bruggencate, he of the hilariously inept proofthatgodexists.org

James White is a much better modern example.

To be clear, I think presuppositionalism is garbage, but there is still a difference between an intelligent, well-spoken and well-meaning presuppositional apologist and a braying jackass that can't even articulate their own crappy arguments properly.

Eight Foot Manchild said:

Only since he got out of jail. And only because his equally fraudulent son discovered it recently, thanks to Sye Ten Bruggencate, he of the hilariously inept proofthatgodexists.org

James White is a much better modern example.

To be clear, I think presuppositionalism is garbage, but there is still a difference between an intelligent, well-spoken and well-meaning presuppositional apologist and a braying jackass that can't even articulate their own crappy arguments properly.

Click to expand...

Lol, those redirects to Disneyland...

You can't argue with people who have given up the ability to be shown to be incorrect in any way.

It's also sincerely not worth it.

Once you have given up the search for truth by deciding that you already have it all, then you're going to be closed to rationality itself.

I didn't realize this was a philosophical sector of Christian belief.. I just thought it was the default view of many Christians and theists in general.. at least the one's I've encountered think in circular loop: Sacred text is Right.. Identifying as a Christian (or insert named theist belief) is right.. Are you Christian? No? Do you believe in the Bible? No? Then you're wrong.. and need to pray.. repent.. re read.. rethink.. etc.. until you get "right". There really is not too much straying from these fundamental thought processes...

Which is why I usually excuse myself or remove myself from dialogue when I realize I've hit someone's loop... Everyone has a loop you just have to stay away from it because then dialogue is no longer productive for anyone.

But what is the purpose of this thread.. I hate to harp back to NVs post. But are we to be enlightened by this? What would you expect this forum to do with this information? Is this the start of a debate ? I have confusement (new word)