One can grant that Van Til was a philosopher, but they need not grant that he was a competent philosopher.

A few comments later, Pierre-Simon Laplace shared with us his own perspective on Van Til’s Presuppositional approach to apologetics. After sharing this, he then posted a rather interesting follow-up comment (in response to Mitch, as far as I can tell).

“Oh, and Van Til was NOT a Philosopher.”

At first blush, one might see this merely as a knee-jerk response to Mitch, and not worthy of a second look. After all, it doesn’t take more than a few moments to look up the word “philosopher”, compare what we know about Van Til to that definition, and see the significant overlap between the two. But is such a reading really fair to Pierre? After all, perhaps Pierre is simply using the term in a more limited sense. That is, perhaps Pierre has a more stringent definition that he holds to, and that he would like Mitch (and the rest of us) to fall in line with.

Let’s read on …

I’m fairly sure that none of Van Til’s 300+ publications appear in any academic (peer reviewed) philosophy journals.

Neither does he have any publications in any main line academic (peer reviewed) philosophy publishing presses.

Neither is any of his work reviewed in any of the main line academic (peer reviewed) philosophy journals.

He does not possess any graduate degrees in Philosophy, from an accredited institution, nor does he have any professional academic presentations at peer reviewed Philosophy conferences (whether nationally or internationally).

From Pierre’s ensuing comments, it seems that in order to be considered a Philosopher, one must meet one or more of the following criteria:

1. Be published and have one’s work reviewed in an academic (peer reviewed) philosophy journal.
2. Possess a graduate degree in philosophy, from an accredited institution.
3. Have presented at an academic (peer reviewed) philosophy conference.

So it does seem, then, that Pierre has a much more stringent definition that he holds to than the general population. This is not a problem, per se, now that we understand how he uses the word. In future discussions with him, we can keep in mind just how narrow his use of the term “philosopher” is, and take that into account. And so, there really isn’t much more to say at this point. Or is there?

Pierre makes one final comment, that (in my opinion) takes his response to Mitch beyond merely sharing his own definition of the term “philosopher”, as follows:

Interestingly enough, the same things we’ve said about Van Til apply to James White (though we could also say that White has no relevant work in the field of Theology either).

It seems odd to me for Pierre to try to draw a parallel at this point between Van Til and White, especially considering that Dr. White does not even represent himself as a Philosopher. However, considering further Pierre’s comment that “we could also say that White has no relevant work in the field of Theology either”, we begin to get the sense that Pierre is interested in doing more here than merely sharing with us his definition of the word “Philosopher”.
It seems that he is attempting to discredit Van Til (and White, for that matter), due to the fact that neither of them has accomplished that which Pierre feels are necessary to be given the honorific title of “Philosopher” or “Theologian”.

And so this leaves me wondering whether Pierre did not feel his earlier comments regarding Presuppositionalism are strong enough to stand on their own, thereby leading him to fallaciously attempt to discredit Van Til in general, and Presuppositionalism by extension.

Perhaps Pierre will clarify whether this was his intention.

BK

[image courtesy of Stuck In Customs]

Systematic Theology I
Systematic Theology II
Systematic Theology III

BK

By way of example, consider the statement “any assertion is a statement which implies its own truth”. Since the statement “any assertion is a statement which implies its own truth” is itself an assertion, and the statement refers to any assertion, it is ultimately self-referencing. In other words, the referent of this statement includes (but is not limited to) the statement itself. This entails that whatever the statement is asserting must also be true of the statement itself. Although this particular statement is self-referencing, it is not problematic.

Perhaps a more famous example is the statement “there are no absolute truths”. Since the statement refers to all truths by virtue of saying there are none (i.e. it is a universal negative), the truth of the statement itself must also, if true, not be true. In other words, the statement is self-refuting. If it is true, then it is false. This statement obviously is problematic.

I came across a different self-referencing, universal statement that turned out to be very problematic for the one asserting it. Following is a portion of our conversation:

BK: You assume that “data” is the only way to KNOW something.
Atheist: Yes, data is the only way to KNOW that something is true or that it exists.
BK: Then show me the data. Show me the data that data is the only way to KNOW that something is true.

If you don’t see the problem here, don’t worry – my opponent did not see it either, so I provided a more detailed response that I have also included here.

You made the following comment:

“Yes, data is the only way to KNOW……that something is true or that it exists.”

There are many claims that can be evaluated as to whether or not they are true. Consider some hypothetical examples:

- “Hell exists”
- “You exist”
- “It’s cold outside”

According to your claim above, we need DATA in order to know whether any of the aforementioned claims are true. That’s the reason you keep asking me to provide data for the existence of hell, after all.

Now, here is another claim that can be evaluated as to whether or not it is true:

- “data is the only way to KNOW that something is true”

Now, if I want to test the truthfulness of this claim (which seems reasonable), then according to you I must offer DATA to demonstrate it is true. If not, then your claim that “data is the only way to KNOW that something is true” is not a universal truth (although you implied it was by failing to qualify it as something less than universal). Therefore, it is only reasonable for me to ask you to offer data to demonstrate that data is the only way to KNOW that something is true. If this statement is true, then you could only KNOW it was true of you had data to show that is the case.

So, can you offer any data to support your claim?

At this point, there has been no data forthcoming.

BK

‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.’

‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’

‘The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master – that’s all.’

For those of you who have read Alice in Wonderland, this exchange between Alice and Humpty Dumpty may ring a bell.  I know it rings a bell with me, because it has been “used” against me in many discussions/debates I have had about God, especially ones where the appropriateness of God’s actions are called into question.

In these cases, the exchange between myself and the non-believer typically centers around one of many instances in the Old Testament where God pronounces judgment on some “innocents” (typically small children) and commands that they be utterly destroyed.  This, according to the non-believer, is not “fair”.  After all, a “just” God would certainly never do such a thing, and therefore it is likely that the Bible is not portraying God at all.  Rather, it is more likely the case that the authors of these books were trying to scare people into submission by painting God out to be something he wasn’t.

My response to such railing against the Bible is to remind the non-believer that if the Bible is true, that the standard of “just” they are holding God to is entirely inappropriate.  It is not up to them to decide what actions are just or unjust for the creator of all that is created.  It is not appropriate for them, as creature, to put their creator on trial.  Rather, they should let the Bible speak for itself regarding which actions are “just” and which are not.

At this point, the typical response is that I am changing the meaning of the word “just”, just as all Christians do when they get cornered in a debate.  The non-believer then launches www.dictionary.com and does a quick copy and paste of the definition of “just” for me, and shares with me that God’s actions are inconsistent with one who is supposedly “guided by truth, reason, justice and fairness” or whatever the definition is that happens to fit their argument the best.  If I attempt to argue that their idea of “just” isn’t consistent with the Bible’s definition, they then launch into a diatribe about the fact that words have meaning, and (more often than not) copy and paste the lines above from Alice in Wonderland.

This has happened more times than I can count.

In this example, the non-believer is attempting to demonstrate that the Bible is not true.  If we look at their argument as a syllogism, it would look something like this:

(1) The Bible claims God ordered the killing of innocent humans

(2) Killing innocent humans is not fair/just

(3) If God exists, he is fair/just

(4) Therefore, if God exists, he would not order the killing of innocent humans (from 2 and 3)

(5) Therefore, the Bible’s claims are incorrect (from 1 and 4)

Putting aside the question of whether humans are innocent in the first place, is the claim that it is not fair/just to kill innocent humans objectively true?  More importantly, is it an objectively true standard that applies to all beings, including God?  The question here is one of standards, as it often is.  God’s actions are being weighed, which means a standard is necessarily involved.  But which standard should be used?  Is it appropriate, for instance, for me to come up with my own standard and evaluate the non-believer’s actions against it?  Why or why not?  Likewise, which standard should God be held to?

The question here is not one of changing the meaning of words at all – it is a question of what standard is to be used.  When I claim that it is not unjust for God to do what he pleases with his creation, I am using the same meaning of the word “just” as the non-believer is.  I am talking about what is “fair” and “right” just like they are.  The distinction comes down to the standard itself that is inherently being appealed to.  What types of actions are “right” or “just” for a creator, after all?

In order for the non-believer to support premise (2) above and make their case that the Bible’s claims are incorrect, they ultimately have two options available to them:

1) Demonstrate that there is an objective standard of justice that God (if he exists) can be held accountable to, and demonstrate that it is inconsistent with God’s actions as described in the Bible

2) Demonstrate that the Bible itself presents a standard of justice that God can be held accountable to, and demonstrate that it is inconsistent with God’s actions as described in the Bible

The non-believer must demonstrate either a contradiction internal to the Bible, or external to objective reality.  Short of that, the argument comes crashing down.

BK

]]> http://www.choosinghats.com/?feed=rss2&p=639 0 http://www.choosinghats.com/?p=538 http://www.choosinghats.com/?p=538#comments Thu, 05 Nov 2009 19:23:06 +0000 BK http://www.choosinghats.com/?p=538 A section of the ongoing discussion between Chris the evil Presuppositionlist (inside joke, sorry) and Mitch over at Urban Philosophy caught my attention today.  It is a section that discusses the concept of “common ground” between believer and unbeliever by using the analogy of gravity.  Here is the entirety of what Mitch stated caught my attention:

The common ground of reality affect both the believer and the non-believer, and this is a common ground from which dialogue may begin. Knowledge of gravity is not required for the effects of gravity. We do not see babies flying because they do not understand physics! The point is that reality is something that effects us all, God-fearing or not. The notion of whether or not one can “account” for gravity should be illuminated through sound, reasoned, argument. It is not difficult to see the move an atheist who experiences the effects of gravity may move towards establishing the existence of God. Perhaps it is the case that gravity exists and that gravity is a natural law and that the best explanation for the natural law of gravity is an intelligent designer. If the non-believer will accept such “natural” theological propositions, they have establish a creator of the Universe, the first step in what could be a cumulative case for Christian theism. I do not think such a move is warranted, but it is not impossible to work from common ground to belief in the Christian God as the presuppositionalist so states.

There is much here that Mitch and I would agree on, but the appropriateness of knowing gravity as an analogy to knowing God is not one of those things.  Let’s look at his comments one at a time.

The common ground of reality affect both the believer and the non-believer, and this is a common ground from which dialogue may begin.

That both believer and non-believer live in God’s world, and are affected by this reality does not necessarily entail that this common ground is where one should start.  In fact, using the term “common ground” in this way totally misses the point that the Presuppositionalist is making.  It isn’t that there is no common ground in the sense of a shared reality that both believer and non-believer can experience together and discuss, it is that there is no common ground in the sense of where the believer and non-believer start in their reasoning process – specifically, the presuppositions they employ.

Knowledge of gravity is not required for the effects of gravity.

This is a bad analogy, at least from the standpoint of what the Presuppositionalist is claiming scripture says.  Mitch is treating the “fact” of gravity here as any other fact which is completely acceptable when talking about gravity, but is entirely not acceptable when talking about God.  Why is this?  It is because of the nature of God.  Bahnsen addresses the fallacy of approaching the question of God’s existence in the same way we question the existence of other facts in the opening of his debate with Stein.  He terms it the “Crackers in the Pantry Fallacy” to approach the question of God’s existence in the same way one approaches the question of whether there are crackers sitting in the pantry.  After all, one of the primary issues in this debate is the consequences on our reasoning process that ultimately arise from God’s own nature and providential plan.

We do not see babies flying because they do not understand physics!

Ironically, this comment is very much like Gordon Stein’s response to Greg Bahnsen in their post-debate discourse when Bahnsen challenged Stein to give an account for “counting”.  Stein responded “but I *do* balance my checkbook”, which missed the entire point Bahnsen was making.  Presuppositionalists do not disagree that non-believers can, in fact, balance their checkbook (or that gravity impacts everyone the same way).  Rather, the issue is being able to give an account for the fact that such things are being done – not in the sense of having to provide the mechanics involved, but rather what would have to be the case (what are the preconditions) that would have to be in place in order to make such a thing sensible?

The notion of whether or not one can “account” for gravity should be illuminated through sound, reasoned, argument.

I think Mitch knows we all agree that sound, reasoned argumentation is what we are all looking for.  The heart of the debate between the Presuppositionalist and the Evidentialist (or those playing the evidentialist advocate), however, is just what type of argument is reasonable when arguing for the God of the Bible.  Van Til makes a very telling statement when he says “the only argument for an absolute God that holds any water is a Transcendental argument”.  He’s not simply trying to bolster his particular method of apologetics; he has a real, cogent argument that he shares (beyond the scope of this post, unfortunately) that demonstrates this to be the case.

If one does not take into account the nature of what is being argued for – all of it – then one will likely take the wrong approach at arguing for it.  If one does not consider the claims that scripture make about who God is, who man is, and why s/he is here, then there is a very good chance that the methodology employed will be entirely inappropriate.

It is not difficult to see the move an atheist who experiences the effects of gravity may move towards establishing the existence of God.

The problem here is really quite simple.  The Bible claims that man is not self-sufficient (i.e. autonomous) in his reasoning process.  It claims that man’s starting point must be God in order to arrive at true knowledge (meaning an assertion that is justifiable down to and including its foundations).  It is logically impossible to start with (even implicitly) someone other than God as your highest authority in reasoning and rationally arrive at the conclusion that God must be your highest authority for reasoning.  If you arrive at such a conclusion by virtue of an authority other than God, then your conclusion that God *must* be one’s authority is contradicted by the method you employed.  In short, the method refutes the (purported) conclusion.

So yes, is it difficult to see an atheist move “towards establishing establishing the existence of God” if by towards you imply that there is any hope they will get there while employing the presuppositions that they do.  Actually, scratch that.  It isn’t that it is difficult, it just isn’t logically possible.

Perhaps it is the case that gravity exists and that gravity is a natural law and that the best explanation for the natural law of gravity is an intelligent designer.

But we, as Presuppositionalists, aren’t arguing merely for an intelligent designer.  Christianity is systematic – we don’t argue for it bit by bit.  The implication here is that one can argue bit by bit from an autonomous position antithetical to the Christian God and come to a conclusion that is directly contradictory to their starting position.  So what if the best argument for gravity is an intelligent designer?  How is the non-believer going to determine what constitutes “best” in the first place?  Best according to what standard?  Their own subjective standard, or the objective standard of God?  And to appeal to logic or reason here as the standard (which may or may not be the chosen response to this point) would be to equivocate on what is meant by the word “standard”.

If the non-believer will accept such “natural” theological propositions, they have establish a creator of the Universe, the first step in what could be a cumulative case for Christian theism.

“Could” speaks of a possible outcome, an outcome which I have shown above to be logically impossible.  One cannot employ a method of reasoning that arrives at a conclusion which denies that method, while faithfully making use of that method throughout.  Either the conclusion is truly never arrived at (that is, it does not logically follow), or the individual in question wasn’t using the method they thought they were.

I do not think such a move is warranted

That’s because it isn’t.  There is no warrant to move from a creator of the Universe to the Christian God while simultaneously employing a reasoning process antithetical to the conclusion one is purportedly looking to arrive at.

but it is not impossible to work from common ground to belief in the Christian God as the presuppositionalist so states.

And I disagree and have provided my reasons above.

All in all I have to say I am thrilled that this interaction is taking place.  I respect Mitch very much and look forward with great excitement to the upcoming debate between himself and Chris!

BK

The article can be found here

Your daddy is standing in a swimming pool out a little bit from the edge. You are, let’s say, three years old and standing on the edge of the pool. Daddy holds out his arms to you and says, “Jump, I’ll catch you. I promise.” Now, how do you make your daddy look good at that moment? Answer: trust him and jump. Have faith in him and jump. That makes him look strong and wise and loving. But if you won’t jump, if you shake your head and run away from the edge, you make your daddy look bad. It looks like you are saying, “he can’t catch me” or “he won’t catch me” or “it’s not a good idea to do what he tells me to do.” And all three of those make your dad look bad.

But you don’t want to make God look bad. So you trust him. Then you make him look good–which he really is. And that is what we mean when we say, “Faith glorifies God” or “Faith gives God glory.” It makes him look as good as he really is. So trusting God is really important.

And the harder it seems for him to fulfill his promise, the better he looks when you trust him. Suppose that you are at the deep end of a pool by the diving board. You are four years old and can’t swim, and your daddy is at the other end of the pool. Suddenly a big, mean dog crawls under the fence and shows his teeth and growls at you and starts coming toward you to bite you. You crawl up on the diving board and walk toward the end to get away from him. The dog puts his front paws up on the diving board. Just then, your daddy sees what’s happening and calls out, “Johnny, jump in the water. I’ll get you.”

Now, you have never jumped from one meter high and you can’t swim and your daddy is not underneath you and this water is way over your head. How do you make your daddy look good in that moment? You jump. And almost as soon as you hit the water, you feel his hands under your arms and he treads water holding you safely while someone chases the dog away. Then he takes you to the side of the pool.

We give glory to God when we trust him to do what he has promised to do–especially when all human possibilities are exhausted. Faith glorifies God. That is why God planned for faith to be the way we are justified.

What a tremendous analogy!

BK

(image source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/brokenchopstick/290244138/ licensed under the CCA 2.0 license)

Atheist: So, you are wrong, because there are many other Christian churches besides the odd Westboro who really do have a better idea of what Jesus meant than YOU do. It’s only your opinion – just as it is Westboro’s opinion that they can determine what Jesus meant.

Westboro, for those of you who are not familiar, is the home of the infamous Fred Phelps and his “God Hates Fags” crew. In this case, the atheist in question was arguing that there was no way for the Christian she was debating with to know whether her view of the Bible was any more accurate than the interpretation of those at Westboro Baptist church. After all, (as she told the Christian), any interpretation of the Bible is subjective – “it’s only your opinion – just as it is Westboro’s opinion that they can determine what Jesus meant.”

What is most interesting in this discussion is that just a moment earlier the atheist claimed that there are “many other Christian churches besides the odd Westboro who really do have a better idea of what Jesus meant” than this Christian did. This is where the atheist undercuts her own argument.

She first states that there are other Christian churches who have a more accurate idea of what the message of Jesus was. But since the message of Jesus is found in the Bible, and all interpretation of the Bible is supposedly subjective (merely opinion), how could these other churches ever know if their idea of the message of Jesus was more or less accurate than anyone else’s? Worse yet, however, is that the atheist is implying by virtue of this assertion that she herself knows what the message of Jesus was, else she would not be able to compare Westboro’s interpretation, or the interpretation of the Christian she was writing to against to the “idea” (i.e. interpretation) that these “other Christian churches” have!

In short, if one chooses to believe that all interpretation of the Bible is mere opinion, then one has no foundation to stand on in arguing that any given interpretation is “better” or “more accurate” than any other. Of course, this fact will never stop people from doing just that.

BK

There are a number of videos already on YouTube about the film … here is just one …

The URL for the website is www.collisionmovie.com.

BK

Atheist: All interpretation of the bible is subjective. You don’t hold the final word on it. It’s all in your own mind and isn’t absolute. Nothing is.

If this gal had left off the last sentence, she probably wouldn’t have gotten my attention. After all, she was just sharing her own opinion about another gal’s interpretation of the Bible – nothing remarkable there. But that last sentence … “nothing is [absolute]” made my ears perk up as it does anytime I hear it.

The following was my response to her:

BK: Nothing is absolute? Does that include your assertion above?

Of course, I was referring to her assertion that “all interpretation of the Bible is subjective”. The point being that she was undercutting her very own ability to argue by making the claim that “nothing is absolute.”

Her response to me:

Atheist: But, I never claimed that my assertion was absolute. So, if mine is not, then neither is hers. It’s all her subjective opinion – nothing else.

Here she fails to see that the very making of an assertion implies that it is true, and not relatively true. For instance … “all men are mortal” implies that every man, in every case, is mortal. “God exists” implies that God exists, not just “for me”. That’s the nature of making unqualified assertions such as “nothing is absolute”; they imply that what is being stated is absolutely true.

Here’s my next response:

BK: So if your assertion is not absolute then it is relative, meaning its truth varies, meaning it is at least possible that some things are indeed absolute. Therefore, in this context it entails that it is possible that her opinion of scripture is not subjective after all – at least according to what you have asserted.

It was at this point that things got interesting. Here is her reply:

Atheist: No, my assertion that nothing is absolute could be absolute – because there is still that possibility – according to your way of thinking.

Nothing is absolute, as I said.

I found it remarkable that this person would make such a bold statement as she did about what a “true Christian” would believe about the Bible. After all, where does she get her perception of what a “true Christian” would believe, if not from the Bible itself? And didn’t she just say earlier that all interpretation of the Bible was subjective?

Well … read my response:

BK: No, because then there would be something which was absolute! Think about it … if your assertion “nothing is absolute” were absolute, then your assertion would be incorrect. It would be absolutely wrong. My way of thinking is simply taking your comments to their logical conclusion.

More to the point – if nothing is absolute, then this includes any claims you make, including your claim that anyone’s view of scripture is subjective. My comment earlier did not remove the possibility that her claims are, in fact, subjective – it simply brought to light that it is possible they may not be, which is in direct contradiction to your assertion that they are.

I thought perhaps at this point I had made it clear what the issue was. But instead I received the following response:

Atheist: Just as I said … Nothing including all your inane verbiage there is absolute.

And so the game was over. No further desire to interact or address what I said – just a dismissal of my response and a labeling of it as “inane verbiage”.

Here was my final reply, which I have yet to receive a response to:

BK: Is it that you don’t understand what I am saying? Is that the problem?

Either way, your assertion undermines itself, either in refuting itself or in making it inconsequential.

Now please understand that this is not a shot against Atheists or Atheism at all – it is a demonstration of a lack of critical thinking. This could have just as easily been a Christian as an Atheist. Unfortunately too many times it is.

BK

Mitch writes: It might not be a justification of induction in Bolt’s opinion, but such is the nature of pragmatism. It needs not be a justification, it simply is a warrant for its continued use. There is no error here as Reichenbach is not attempting to contest that induction is justified or unjustified in that statement, simply that we have a reason to continue to use it.

I am not quite sure what Mitch is saying here when he states on the one hand that “it needs not be a justification” and on the other hand states that “it simply is a warrant for its continued use.” Perhaps Mitch means something less formal by use of the word “warrant” than I am used to in discussions of this nature.

It seems to me that the statement “it needs not be a justification” implies no justification is present. Therefore, perhaps the word “warrant” simply means “reason” in the weaker sense, as in something that provides a motivation, rather than a logical basis. If Mitch means something more formal by the term, then I don’t find consistency with the implication that no justification is present.

Now, if Mitch means “warrant” as a motivation, then it seems to follow that it is entirely reasonable to hold a particular position on the basis of pragmatism alone (i.e. without the need for a logical justification). If this is truly the case, then I wonder how Mitch would respond to those who might claim to hold the position that the Christian God exists as a pragmatic belief? Is there “warrant” for believing in God if it allows the believer to accomplish a particular goal? Does the believer “have a reason to continue” their belief, if it gives them the ability to meet a particular end? At what point is it acceptable to give up the search for justification and appeal to pragmatism?

BK