Christian Apologetics
I’ve been having a great debate about theism vs. atheism over at “Young-Earth Creationists Anonymous” that clearly demonstrates the fruitless nature of evidential apologetics. That is, arguing the case of Christian Theism based on physical evidence. This type of argument inevitably leads to a “creationism vs. evolutionism” debate which only complicates the matter by conflating evolution with atheism, and creationism with a particular interpretation of Genesis - neither of which are universal. This is unfortunate, but all too common.
However, for Christians who are genuinely interested in defending their faith against the “new atheism” there are practical alternatives. One such alternative is known as presuppositional apologetics. How does it work? Rather than grant the assumptions of your opponent’s worldview and walk right into his trap, it is often more fruitful to have an honest and open discussion about the starting assumptions themselves. So what are they? A theist starts with God as his ultimate reference point and an atheist usually starts with himself or the cosmos as his ultimate reference point (although there are different flavors of atheism). Since any evidence offered by either side will only be judged in accordance with the premise of one’s own worldview - it is pointless to go any further. The starting assumptions of these two worldviews have dramatic consequences that must be fully explored.
Unfortunately, most believers claim to start with the Creator (God) as their ultimate reference point, but then attempt to use the cosmos (science, logic, reason, etc…) to justify their belief in the Creator - unknowingly conceeding the point that the cosmos is a more direct, more reliable, path to TRUTH than is the Creator in whom the creation has its being. Once all parties agree to this, then any atheist worth his salt will proceed to clobber the theists with his own club, freely using the cosmos itself (science, logic, reason, etc…) to argue against any need to assign it a Creator. Why complicate the search for truth by adding a Diety to the mix? If we can all agree that science/logic/reason exist in and of themselves, Occam’s Razor would seem to cut God right out of the picture. And if all we offer for faith is evidence from the cosmos (the only kind of evidence that a materialist will consider), have we not already granted the creation authority to separate truth from falsehood? Have we not already made the atheist’s case for him - that God is an unnecessary obstacle along the path to truth?
To see a good example of how this works in practice with real atheists who are smart, articulate, and well-behaved, visit http://recoveringyoungearthers.blogspot.com/2007/10/why-does-faith-redemption.html and check it out for yourself. I am by no means claiming victory in these discussions, so don’t expect to see a severe one-sided thrashing of atheism. But you will see that presuppositional apologetics is not just something for the ivory towers of Reformed seminaries. It can produce fruitfull two-way conversations on the street where it counts.
-GJG
October 15th, 2007 at 9:30 am
Dear Gordon,
I believe the presuppositional approach can yield some useful insights, but there are problems with its anthropology.
For one thing, presuppositionalism is often accompanied by a biblically unwarranted hubris. Some arguers in this school actually say that unbelievers cannot comprehend ANYTHING rightly because of their fallen nature–neglecting overwhelming biblical evidence to the contrary, and also, more seriously, neglecting to realize that the fallen nature is a condition which applies to ALL humans, not only unbelievers.
I think that presuppositionalism must be tempered by a broad scholarly appropriation of all the many great Christian schools of thought, or it endangers the Christian virtue of humility.
The Holy Spirit teaches through scripture that the problem with men is not that they won’t “accept a particular worldview”. Rather, he teaches that they by nature reject their dire need for the cross. Believers, I think, should be seen not as people who “have the right worldview”, but rather as people who are slowly and painfully recovering from their despising of the cross, and who wish to help others begin recovering as well.
God bless you for this very important work of yours.
October 15th, 2007 at 4:03 pm
Thanks Judd, very well said. And welcome to the BTF blog!
Like all of the -isms I hold to (Calvinism, Covenantalism, Post-Millennialism, Evolutionism, etc…) I should also qualify my acceptance of Presuppositionalism - since I rarely take any of these things in thier entirety.
I like to see them as frameworks to help make sense of complicated ideas, not as absolute and unbending ideologies as is the tendency of systematic theolgians.
-GJG