My email, eh. Thanks. And did you deliberately put in the pun? You said "argue circles"...
I'm beginning to see the same problem I had with other presuppers... but cannot yet put my finger on it. It's partly that it's sounds like an invincible position, partly that there still exist questions of reliability of the Bible, partly that I think I'm hearing something that doesn't quite, well, cohere to reality. No smear intended... until my thoughts take form they are quite rough and unprecise. I also cannot quite picture how one would argue in the manner you are suggesting.
In regards to the low-level skeptics, there's two ways I take--or both (mentioned briefly in the CA thread). Either demonstrate how their cases are inerror, or argue for the necessity of historical context in interpretation. Sometimes I need to do both; if the level I am arguing at is too high for them and they cannot understand the exegetical rationale.*
The epistemology of a lot of people today is somewhat scientific. They want "facts" and evidence. The more arguments you destruct and the more things that start pointing your way does a lot. (I don't believe the point of apologetics is to convert people; it's doomed to failure and I know the T of the TULIP agrees.) But then consider this...
We both know, I assume, that people find ways to hide if they don't want to believe. They'll manage to find some reason to keep their beliefs and they may even change some epistemology around to give their reason sufficient strength. In this case I think a body of evidence is stronger than an argument against the coherency of all non-biblical worldviews. The way it would come to be seen, I believe, is many reasons versus one argument. Also, with many reasons in the memory it calls for much more twisting and turning. Pretty soon it's like history is scary.
Anyway, keep on poking at my thoughts please, I'm sure what I'm thinking of will take shape soon.
---
*Just so you know I'm not just talk, I once pointed out that the clothing laws in the OT are coherent (and comfortable) within ancient notions of purity and wholeness (if you want a quick rundown of each I can do that). This was in response to the charge that the clothing laws were absurd. The response I got back was a repeat; not a refutation, of the original charge. This I think calls for a more fundamental approach; educating the skeptic on basic exegesis. It's basically a case of, 'Well gee, of course your decontextualized interpretations are absurd.'
Hey Socrates, let me ask you a question...
Yes?
If I plug in an ice chest downstairs, leave the house, drive down to New York in a garbage dump truck, and read the newspaper in a Starbucks, is the ice chest still on?
........(I think he needs some hemlock)
