NOTES ON PRESUPPOSITIONAL APOLOGETICS - Jersey Flight

-----{This page will be updated periodically.}-----

 
Here one can learn more about presuppositionalism, in a concise space, than if one had read all the volumes of Van til, Bahnsen and Frame combined. Theologians always seem to tell us precisely what theology is not.  

 
[1] Here one must read carefully: one must distinguish the presuppositional apologist's reduction from the presuppositional apologist's justification. In other words, the reductio ad absurdum, performed by the presuppositional apologist, is separate from the reason they give for justification. If this is not the case then they are essentially making an argument from ignorance. When the presuppositional apologist uses skepticism to say that all claims of non-christian knowledge break down (this is not a justification for their position), this is simply a rationalistic reduction. In order to show that their position survives this criticism, they must provide a positive justification, which they think they do, by ignorantly asserting that the statements of the Bible are authoritative because they are "self-justifying." But clearly this cannot be a justification without equally negating itself! Hence, the presuppositional apologist attempts to make use of the fallacy of special pleading... indeed, the presuppositional apologist desperately needs this fallacy in order to avoid the force of his own criticism! But if special pleading is the reason for the presuppositional apologist's justification, then clearly his position is self-refuting.

[2] If the Christian view of the world is correct then there is no such thing as evil, but only the appearance of evil, as "God works out all things according to the council of his own will." One must consider the barbaric logic of this position, for it implies that Nagasaki was good! Insofar as one tries to claim that Nagasaki is evil, one denies that God is all powerful, or one admits that God brought about the horror of Nagasaki for the sake of good, but this would imply that all evil is merely an appearance, nay, this would imply that there really is no such thing as evil! Either one can call something evil, independent of God, or else one must admit that God has control of evil, in which case, either God is evil or there is no such thing as evil. 

[3] ALL apologetics amount to the same thing: an attempt to foster consent, that justification by means of special pleading is not only legitimate, but that this [fictional] justificatory procedure, remains the exclusive right of the apologist alone.

[4] In order to be a presuppositionalist one must be completely given over to the error of authority, in other words, one must be powerless against the claims of authority. Instead of challenging the claims of authority, as authority always bears the burden of proof, a presuppositionalist affirms the claims of authority by default. A presuppositionalist is simply a person with a psychological disability in the realm of resisting authority.*

*{for more on this personality type see Stanley Milgram, Obedience to Authority; An Experimental View.}

[5] All great Christians have been presuppositionalists insofar as they aim to obey. If a self-proclaimed prophet tells them to slaughter children in the name of God, then being totally subservient (and defenseless) to this form of authority, they deem it morally right and intelligent to obey. Christians always confuse obedience for morality.

[6] Presuppositionalism is nothing more than an authoritarian language; it is an idiosyncratic vocabulary of terms meant to snare the reader; it is a form of sophistry based on reduction.

[7] I have never met a presuppositionalist that had the ability to take his presuppositionalism all the way. In other words, every presuppositionalist lacks the ability to analyze his own presuppositions. Indeed, this is what it means to be a presuppositionalist! It is precisely the fact that one lacks this ability which makes them a presuppositionalist! To identify oneself as a presuppositionalist then, is merely to confess that one has an inability.

[8] The only thing a consistent presuppositionalist discovers is 1) that Christianity is false according to rational and empirical standards and 2) that things are not as they should be, if the universe is in fact, the work of a benevolent God. Contrary to presuppositionalism, man's epistemological dilemma cannot be resolved by appealing to blank authority.

[9] I encourage the reader to find comedy in the presuppositionalist's demeanor. These men prostrate their ignorance before us with the utmost confidence... and all the while... do they really have what they claim to know, merely because they appeal to the assertions of ancient documents? Dear God, they claim nothing less than the total resolution and final solidification of all philosophical problems! [Very much like the stupidity of Plantinga, they speak of the magic of the Holy Spirit.] These bold blockheads really believe that an authoritarian emphasis of the Bible is equivalent to knowledge. Watching them is like watching a bird peck at a rock in hopes of getting crumbs (the funny part is that they claim we are foolish for not doing the same thing).

[10] We owe it to the presuppositionalist, in our concern for his well being, to let him know just how unserious his presuppositional terminology is. Presuppositionalism is a hilarious spectacle of sophistry; "the self-authenticating witness of scripture." [Remember the reduction performed by the presuppositionalist is separate from the actual epistemology of presuppositonalism. Van til hi-jacked this technique of reduction from David Hume, and David Hume learned it from Empiricus. A presuppositionalist's reduction is no different from any other philosophical reduction... well, I suppose there is one attribute which sets his reduction apart, an unprecedented epistemological ignorance regarding the nature of his own view!] 

-
-
-