Anderson and Welty Reply to Critics

It has been a few years now since James Anderson and Greg Welty published their Argument for God from Logic paper (in the Philosophia Christi). Now Anderson and Welty respond to critics. Check it out here.  

Presuppositionalism Refuted, Really?

Sye Ten Bruggencate

Atheist responses to the same questions asked by Sye.

Dan Courtney

James Stillwell (OAA)

A clear critique of these videos can be seen in James Anderson's replies to my questions here:

Atheism Deceptively Fideism

Presuppositions, Epistemology and Atheism

Not Merely Natural Theology

What happens when you get a presuppositionalist, Nate Shannon, criticizing two other presuppositionalists, James Anderson and Greg Welty, for not being purely presuppositional in their academic work? You get Steve Hays doing a Framian take down on Shannon. Hays forceful argues against Shannon's criticisms of Anderson and Welty. Check it out Here!

John Frame and Presuppositional Apologetics

Dr. James Anderson has written a wonderful exposition of John Frame's thought; but more importantly, he gives us a practical example of how to apply presuppositional apologetics. Here  Start at page 451 to see presuppositionalism applied to naturalism.

Meta-apologetics and Apologetics

I must say Steve Hays has done it again! He has written a post that is true and most thought provoking about debate within presuppositional apologetics Here. Many presuppositional apologists focus too much arguing for the presuppositional method and little time explaining its application. The serious problem is that those presuppositionalists that actually apply the method often get criticized by those that want to focus strictly on the purity of the method. Hays makes it clear this is how apologetics becomes fruitless. Check out his post!  

Atheism Deceptively Fideism

My second email to Dr. James Anderson:

Let me try to clarify the atheist's main objection(s) to the transcendental argument for the existence of God, so that you might be able to help clear up my confusion.

You asked me in your response if the atheist committed himself to the claim that knowledge is viciously circular (e.g. A is justified by B, and B is justified by A). The atheist did in fact claim this. I believe this atheist has listened to a lot of Greg Bahnsen, so he states we all have an ultimate authority in which we appeal to (e.g. The rationalist's ultimate authority is reason, and for the empiricist it's experience). As Frame puts it in his outline for lectures on DKG,

"C.    Justification for believing in revelation or Scripture.

1.      The ultimate standard (Scripture, revelation) must justify itself. It would be contradictory to try to justify an ultimate by something more ultimate.

2.      This fact introduces a kind of circularity into the justification. However,

(i)                 All systems of thought are circular when they seek to defend their ultimate principle. Rationalists must appeal to reason, empiricists to sense-experience. (In bold for emphasis)

(ii)               We should distinguish between narrowly and broadly circular arguments.

(A)  Narrow: Scripture is God’s Word, because it is God’s Word.

(B)  Broad: Scripture is God’s Word, because it is logically consistent, is supported by this evidence, etc.

(1)   Still circular, because Scripture is the final criterion for judging evidence, logic, etc."

>

    

I believe the atheist I have been dealing with got a hold of the idea that a world view is justified by its ultimate principle and applied it to knowledge. Thus he claims all knowledge is circular at its foundation. What follows from his claim is that TAG does not demonstrate God's existence. He reaches this conclusion by reasoning that although the Christian claims that the Christian world view is the precondition for human experience, it is rather the case that the preconditions of human experience is induction, the reliability of the senses, the external world, and other minds.

So the atheist is saying that the Christian claims:

P is the precondition for Q

Q

Therefore, P

The Christian world view is the precondition for the world to be intelligible. The Christian proves this by letting induction, logic, or morality stand for Q to show that the Christian world view is the precondition for Q. What the atheist I have been dealing with wants to say is that TAG's conclusion is unnecessary. He says that the precondition for making sense of the world can be simply understood as induction, logic, and the reliability of the senses. I guess in some way this atheist is trying to argue for something like Kant's categories? I don't know. To me the atheist seems to claim, for example, that the uniformity of nature can be understood as a precondition and presupposition we all must concede in order for the world to be intelligible. The atheist accounts for this presupposition in the uniformity of nature by saying that if it wasn't the case we could not prove anything.  

I don't quite understand how to argue against this atheist's claims. Since he says knowledge is inherently circular, it is difficult to use TAG since he will simply say that his presupposition is that the preconditions for making sense of the world is the uniformity of nature, logic, and the reliability of the senses. In other words, as TAG argues that unless the Christian world view is true, it would be impossible to prove anything. The atheist I am dealing with claims that unless the uniformity of nature and the reliability of the senses is true, it would be impossible to prove anything. The atheist is claiming that since Christians claim the Scriptures are self-justifying, it could be simply argued instead that the assumption of the uniformity of nature and the reliability of the senses is self-justifying on account of it being the preconditions for the world to be intelligible.    

In Christ,

Ryan Dozier

Dr. Anderson's reply:

         

Ryan,

Sorry for taking a while to respond here.

Some comments in reply:

1. Your atheist interlocutor is an unabashed fideist, which is a rather strange position for a self-styled freethinker and champion of reason! He recognizes that human reasoning has preconditions, but he's content simply to "posit" the fulfilment of those preconditions"on faith" rather than trying to find some deeper explanation.

2. Similarly, he is remarkably philosophically incurious. Most philosophers have sought ultimate unifying explanations for the phenomena of human experience. What ultimately "accounts" for the uniformity of nature and the orderliness of the universe? What ultimately "accounts" for our ability to reason inductively, to gain emprical knowledge, to know "a priori" truths, etc.? Your atheist friend is apparently content to ignore those questions altogether and not to seek ultimate explanations. But then he misses the force of the theistic argument: the theist's worldview can offer a "coherent unifying explanation" for these phenomena in a way that the atheist's worldview (e.g., naturalism) cannot. For that very reason, theism is rationally superior to atheism.

3. To elaborate on this last point: the atheist has to simply resort to positing a lot of brute facts --both unexplained and unconnected. It's just a brute fact that the universe is orderly. It's just a brute fact that human sense organs are reliable. It's just a brute fact that there are objective moral values. It's just a brute fact that the universe exists at all. The atheist can offer no overarching and unifying expanation for these facts; he can offer no cogent account of them. In contrast, the theist has a worldview that can straightforwardly account for "all" of them. Clearly a worldview that can offer such an account is philosophically superior to one that cannot. The atheist resorts to sheer fideism whereas the theist resorts to reasoned metaphysical explanation.

4. Here's the point put schematically. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that human reasoning has five metaphysical preconditions: A,B, C, D, E. (In reality there are many more.) The Christian claims that the existence of God accounts for these preconditions; in other words, if the God of the Bible exists it follows naturally that these preconditions obtain. In contrast, the atheist has to admit that if there is no God then there's no good reason to think that these preconditions obtain; either they could not obtain at all (e.g., if human reason presupposes certain objective moral values, as Frame argues in AGG) or else they only obtain by sheer chance. So the atheist has to appeal to brute fact "for each individual precondition." Any appeal to brute fact is rationally inferior to the metaphysical explanation provided by the theist; and to multiply such appeals (i.e., make such an appeal for "each individual precondition,"as your atheist friend does) is to sink further into obscurantist fideism.

5. Consider the analogy of a crime scene: Mac's fingerprints are on the table, the DNA from traces of saliva on a glass matches his own, distinctive footprints in the sand outside the beach house match his shoes, a witness saw someone matching his description leave the house at the time of the crime, he had a clear motive for the crime, and soon. The theist's explanation for the preconditions of human experience is equivalent to the claim that Mac committed the crime; that's a simple and coherent explanation for all the facts. The atheist's explanation (which isn't really an explanation at all) is equivalent to the claim that all these facts "just happened" to be the case. It's not even as though they each have individual, but unrelated, explanations -- it's far worse than that! The atheist is saying, in effect, that these facts don't even have individual explanations; they're just inexplicable brute facts; end of story. (Can you imagine a defense attorney relying on such a desperate line of defense in order to exonerate his client?) It should be clear just who holds the more rational position and who is the real fideist.

Blessings,

James

Presuppositions, Epistemology, and Atheism

Whenever I had questions I would email James Anderson for help. I figured many readers would benefit from my questions and Dr. Anderson's responses.

My first email:

James Anderson,

You are perhaps busy, but could you help answer a question concerning Presuppositional Epistemology. I have been debating some local Atheists in my area. I presented a formulation of the transcendental argument in regards to induction. This led to a discussion on epistemic justification. One of the atheists claimed that knowledge is circular and thus it is perfectly justified to make inductive inferences from experience. He continued to argue that in the case of the reliability of the five senses, they are established as such based on experience. Eventually the discussion centered on the five senses and Christian epistemology. I think this atheist must of read Vincent Cheung's article "The Fatal Maneuver" because his argumentation made me feel like I had to choose between Revelation or sensation. The atheist argued that Christians must presuppose the reliability of their five senses in order to read the Bible, and then they are able to argue from the scriptures that God is the precondition for the reliability of the senses, induction, knowledge or human experience in general. The atheist claimed  that this leaves Christians in two circles of justification. The Christian presupposes the reliability of the 5 senses and justifies this fact by Scripture, but the reading of Scripture is justified by the reliability of the 5 senses. The atheist claimed that Christians are guilty of circular reasoning  just as much as atheists are, the difference is that atheists just stick with one circle for justification, i.e. atheists just assume that the reliability of the senses or induction is justified by experience. The atheist concluded by saying that both atheists and Christians are no better off for accounting for the reliability of the senses or induction.  So my question is as a Presuppositionalist how should I respond to this claim that Christian's must establish the reliability of the senses before one can appeal to the scriptures, which is only accessible by the senses?

Dr. Anderson's reply:

What exactly does he [the atheist] mean by "knowledge is circular"?  If he means

something like the following...

1. We can justify P on the basis of Q .

2. We can justify Q on the basis of P.

...then I honestly don't know of any contemporary epistemologist who would support that idea.  For that's almost a textbook case of a vicious epistemic circularity.  Hume famously observed that justifying induction on the basis of experience is question-begging and I'm not aware of any epistemologist today who would try to justify induction empirically.  Does your atheist friend know of one? And he can't see that this is viciously circular?  One can establish X empirically only if one's senses are reliable; hence it begs the very point in question to try to establish empirically the reliability of one's senses. There's no vicious circularity here, for two reasons: (1) Christian theology holds that the existence of God can be known *a priori* via natural revelation (Calvin's "sensus divinitatis"); (2) the Christian isn't claiming that we can justify belief in the reliability of the senses by appealing to belief in God or to belief in the Bible.

The atheist completely misses the point here.  Everyone in the debate takes for granted that our senses are reliable and that we're justified in believing them to be reliable.  The real question is: Which worldview, theism or naturalism, can *account* for the reliability of our sense (and also our *a priori* knowledge that they are reliable)?

The same goes for induction.  Everyone (or nearly everyone!) in the debate takes for granted that inductive reasoning is generally reliable.  The real question is: Which worldview, theism or naturalism, can *account* for the general reliability of inductive reasoning?  In particular, which worldview can account for the inductive principle, i.e., the uniformity of nature in time and space? Theism can readily account for (a) the uniformity of nature and (b) our justified *a priori* belief in the uniformity of nature. Naturalism, not so much! No, this is confused.  The Christian doesn't justify the reliability of the senses by appealing to Scripture.  Rather, the Christian argues that the *biblical worldview* (i.e., the worldview reflected in Scripture) can account for the reliability of the sense whereas the *naturalist worldview* cannot.  That is to say, the Christian can offer a ready explanation for the reliability of his senses in terms of his worldview, whereas the atheist cannot do so.  To put the point another way: if the biblical worldview is true then the assumption that our senses are reliable is most likely justified, whereas if the naturalist worldview is true then that assumption is most likely not justified.

Again, the relevant question isn't "How do we prove that our sense are reliable?" but rather "Given that our senses are reliable, which worldview can best account for that fact?"You respond by pointing out that this is a red herring: neither the Christian nor the atheist needs to establish the reliability of the senses. That is a given in the debate.  What's at issue is which worldview (i.e., which view about the basic nature of reality, the origin of the universe, the origin and nature of human beings, the origin and nature of the human mind, etc.) can best *account* for the reliability of the senses?

Biblical Apologetics

Here is an excellent sketch on Presuppositional apologetics by Sye Ten Burggencate.

Some helpful material I compiled from Van Til, Bahnsen, Anderson, Lisle, and Cheung.

5 but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to


make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you;


yet do it with gentleness and respect" 1 Peter 3:15






As this verse says "make a defense" that comes from the Geek ἀπολογία which


means to give an argument or reasoned response. Thus as Christians we are to be


ready to give an argument for our faith with Christ at the center of it. Our


argument is to honor Christ's lordship and our actions are to exemplify


likeness of Christ. We are to be gentle and respectful to all who ask of us a


justification of our faith.






"2 that their hearts may be encouraged, being knit together in love, to reach


all the riches of full assurance of understanding and the knowledge of God's


mystery, which is Christ,


3 in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge." Col 2:2-3






"7 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge; fools despise wisdom and


instruction." Proverbs 1:7






"1 The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, they do


abominable deeds, there is none who does good. " Psalm 14:1






Biblical Guidelines

"1. That we use the same principle in apologetics that we use in theology: the


self-attesting, self-explanatory Christ of Scripture.


2. That we no longer make an appeal to "common notions" which Chris- tian and


non-Christian agree on, but to the "common ground" which they actually have


because man and his world are what Scripture


says they are.


3. That we appeal to man as man, God's image. We do so only if we set the


non-Christian principle of the rational autonomy of man against the Christian


principle of the dependence of man's knowledge on God's knowledge as revealed


in the person and by the Spirit of Christ.


4. That we claim, therefore, that Christianity alone is reasonable for men to


hold. It is wholly irrational to hold any other position than that of


Christianity. Christianity alone does not slay reason on the altar of "chance."


5. That we argue, therefore, by "presupposition." The Christian, as did


Tertullian, must contest the very principles of his opponent's position. The


only "proof" of the Christian position is that unless its truth is presupposed there is no possibility of "proving" anything at all. The actual state of affairs as preached by Christianity is the necessary foundation of "proof" itself.


6. That we preach with the understanding that the acceptance of the Christ of


Scripture by sinners who, being alienated from God, seek to flee his face, comes


about when the Holy Spirit, in the presence of inescapably clear evidence, opens


their eyes so that they see things as they truly are.


7. That we present the message and evidence for the Christian position as


clearly as possible, knowing that because man is what the Christian says he is,


the non-Christian will be able to under- stand in an intellectual sense the


issues involved. In so doing, we shall, to a large extent, be telling him what


he "already knows" but seeks to suppress. This "reminding" process provides


a fertile ground for the Holy Spirit, who in sovereign grace may grant the


non-Christian repentance so that he may know him who is life eternal. "[1]





An easy apologetics outline: AIM

A- Arbitrariness=Expose the unbelievers assertions that have no justification.

I- Inconsistencies= Expose any inconsistencies in what the unbeliever says.

M- Mistaken foundations for knowledge. One must demonstrate only the Christian
worldview can provide the necessary foundations or presuppositions for knowledge. Only from the Christian worldview can one claim to have knowledge (i.e. justified true beliefs) for two reasons:(1) The absolute triune God has
revealed truth to us in His Word and continues to illuminate our minds by His Spirit (2) Scripture tells us all mankind are the image bearers of God and hence possess intellects and wills that can reliably acquire knowledge.[2] The goal is to show the unbeliever must assume the Christian viewpoint to know
anything with certainty. If any unbeliever claims to have knowledge of anything, he can never be certain since one must either be God or know God to have knowledge of anything. That is because one must be everywhere at once, be outside of time and control everything in order to know something. Since all facts are related to each other. And in order for one to know a fact in its proper context one must know them all.









   Unbelievers either reason in a circle putting human reason or experience on the


throne as ruler and ultimate standard of their knowledge. We must show only God


and His Word can rightly be the ultimate standard and authority. Only God can


give us knowledge. Christians, too, argue in a circle. But our circle from God’s


Word provides the necessary foundations/assumptions for knowledge. Moreover, the


circle is rational since the authority appealed to as ultimate is in fact


Ultimate, namely God. Unbelievers are forced into skepticism and/or fideism.[3]





  If a Christian gets stumped he can always resort to these questions that can


be phrased in different forms.



“1. Why? A question that demands reasons for whatever is asserted by the


unbeliever so the mistaken foundation can be exposed.


2. So? This question seeks to counter irrelevant things the unbeliever asserts.


3. Really? The question exposes the fact Christianity is the truth and the


unbeliever ought to reexamine his view. But most of all it gives Christians


opportunity to show the unbeliever the necessity of presupposing the Christian


worldview in order to have knowledge.”[4]








   [1] Cornelius Van Til. The Defense of the Faith, 3rd ed. rev. (Nutley, New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1967), pp.298-99.




[2] I made my own acronym from Jason Lisle. The Ultimate Proof Of Creation. (Green Forest: Master Books, 2009),pp.84-95.




[3] James Anderson via email




[4] Vincent Cheung. Students in the Real World. http://www.vincentcheung.com/books/invinfaith.pdf p.76.