Discussing Presuppositionalism

[Butch5]

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.

It seems that the term "Presuppositionalism" is used rather loosely. I've heard it defined in different ways. As I understand the term it is the idea that only the Biblical world view can account for things like, morality, logic, and uniformity of nature. Evolution cannot account for these, therefore if the evolutionist or Atheist makes his argument based on these he must first assume the Biblical world view in order to argue against it. I also understand that a real presuppositionalist doesn't reject evidence, but rather realizes that evidence isn't really proof because it is evaluated based on one's world view. This is why the creation scientist and the evolution scientist can both look at the same evidence and yet come away with two different conclusions.

What you've explained seems like a cop out to me. Like a way to avoid answering the hard questions.

 

[juvenissun]

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.

Argument on ANY issue between a Christian and an atheist (include humanist) will eventually go down the bottomline question: Has God or Has no God. And there is no compromise on this question. A fraction of God is not a possible answer.

Any truth in Christianity is originated from the acceptance of God. So, any issue related to Christianity, by logic, would be black and white, not a single trace of gray is allowed.

 

[juvenissun]

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.

How do you know if this reasoning is true or not?
How much time have you used to examine the premise? How much time "they" used to do that?

 

[Yekcidmij]

I have recently made a study of Presuppositionalism, something which is sweeping the evangelical world,

It's not something new, and I don't know that I've seen it "sweeping" anything. I've been a member of a few large churches and "presuppositionalism" never came up anywhere.

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

Generally speaking (since I don't know or keep up with Hovind on anything) presuppositionalists tend to be more Calvinist in my experience and I don't believe Hovind is a Calvinist. Maybe they aren't mutually exclusive though; it's just something I've observed.

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.

I don't know that presuppositionalists suppose non-Christians are "idiots," though people on the internet may behave differently behind the screen.

From my understanding, Presuppositionalism begins it's reasoning with knowledge of God as an axiom. And from what I recall people like Bahnsen saying, they would believe that everyone knows "the truth."

Which goes against the definition of truth as "justified true belief" and not as that plus 100% complete and total knowledge and understanding.

I think you're talking about "knowledge" as "justified true belief." It would be weird saying that "truth" was "justified true belief" since "truth" is in the definition of itself. In any case, knowledge as justified true belief almost certainly seems to be wrong to me because of things like Gettier problems.

 

[Greg J.]

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.

It seems like you have discovered that there are illogical people who have adopted the label Christian. Such people also select other words to label themselves with.

The only fundamental conflict I am aware of is simply something like (for example) suggesting a non-Christian can't investigate and understand the depth of meaning that God created man in his own image if he doesn't believe there is such an image. Human thinking that builds on other human thinking is blocked by unbelief. It's like suggesting that we could be where we are today in our understanding of relativity and quantum mechanics if we never tested theses along the way. At some point along the path of building theories upon unproven hypotheses the potential for error becomes so great that there certainly is error in some unidentified way, and motivation to keep building on those theories requires leaving the realm of science and entering the realm of fantasy.