Irenaeus, Siteadmin, Check users, oversight, Administrators
351,743
edits
Changes
Atheism and presuppositional apologetics (view source)
Revision as of 02:42, March 4, 2017
, 02:42, March 4, 2017no edit summary
[[Image:Bahnsen.jpg|thumb|150px|Dr. Greg Bahnsen became known as the "man atheists fear most" due to Michael Martin's cancellation of their scheduled debate.]]
[[Image:Bahnsen.jpg|thumb|150px|Dr. [[Greg Bahnsen]] became known as the "man atheists fear most" due to Michael Martin's cancellation of their scheduled debate.]]
[[Atheism]], as defined by the ''[[Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy]]'', the ''[[Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy]]'', and other [[philosophy]] reference works, is the denial of the existence of [[God]].<ref>Multiple references:
[[Atheism]], as defined by the ''[[Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy]]'', the ''[[Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy]]'', and other [[philosophy]] reference works, is the denial of the existence of [[God]].<ref>Multiple references:
*Smart, J. J. C. (August 8, 2011). [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism "Atheism and agnosticism"]. ''The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy'' (Spring 2013 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.).
*Smart, J. J. C. (August 8, 2011). [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism "Atheism and agnosticism"]. ''The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy'' (Spring 2013 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.).
I should begin by pointing out that the Presuppositional Apologetic does not discount the use of evidences in apologetic reasoning. It does not use evidences in the traditional manner, however. By the traditional manner, I mean using evidences as an appeal to the authority of the unbeliever's autonomous reasoning. The problem is, of course, that the unbeliever cannot reason autonomously. Without [[God]], there would be no possibility of reason. And so the reality of the matter is that every time the unbeliever attempts to reason, he is borrowing from the [[Christianity|Christian]] worldview. That is, he is being inconsistent with his stated presuppositions. And that is the crucial point. Ultimately the intellectual conflict between believers and unbelievers is a matter of antithetical worldviews. The essence of the Presuppositional Apologetic is the attempt to show that the unbeliever's worldview drives him to subjectivity, irrationalism, and moral anarchy. And so the Presuppositional Apologetic calls for the Christian and non-Christian to set side by side their two worldviews and do an internal examination of them both in order to determine whether or not they are consistent even within their own framework. Since God does exist, and since Christianity is true, then any worldview which denies these truths are false and can be demonstrated to be so.<ref>http://www.gospeloutreach.net/papol.html</ref>}}
I should begin by pointing out that the Presuppositional Apologetic does not discount the use of evidences in apologetic reasoning. It does not use evidences in the traditional manner, however. By the traditional manner, I mean using evidences as an appeal to the authority of the unbeliever's autonomous reasoning. The problem is, of course, that the unbeliever cannot reason autonomously. Without [[God]], there would be no possibility of reason. And so the reality of the matter is that every time the unbeliever attempts to reason, he is borrowing from the [[Christianity|Christian]] worldview. That is, he is being inconsistent with his stated presuppositions. And that is the crucial point. Ultimately the intellectual conflict between believers and unbelievers is a matter of antithetical worldviews. The essence of the Presuppositional Apologetic is the attempt to show that the unbeliever's worldview drives him to subjectivity, irrationalism, and moral anarchy. And so the Presuppositional Apologetic calls for the Christian and non-Christian to set side by side their two worldviews and do an internal examination of them both in order to determine whether or not they are consistent even within their own framework. Since God does exist, and since Christianity is true, then any worldview which denies these truths are false and can be demonstrated to be so.<ref>http://www.gospeloutreach.net/papol.html</ref>}}
[[Greg Bahnsen]] wrote:
{{Cquote|Presuppositional apologetics as taught by Cornelius Van Til urges the Christian to argue with unbelievers in an “indirect” fashion, doing an internal analysis of the unbeliever’s worldview (his fundamental assumptions about reality, knowledge, and ethics) and comparing it to the worldview revealed in the Bible. Many students of apologetics have come to see the strength of this apologetical challenge when it is applied to the various kinds of views advocated by atheists or materialists. Given the presuppositions of the atheist, he could not make sense out of adherence to the laws of logic (as I tried to show in my public debate with Gordon Stein), nor could he make sense out of the principles and procedures of science itself (as I tried to show in my public debate with Edward Tabash). The atheist cannot give a rational account of the fundamental assumptions of ethics, either.1 Atheism is philosophically unable to argue ethically, scientifically, or logically against the Christian faith.<ref>[https://answersingenesis.org/apologetics/presuppositional-reasoning-with-false-faiths/ Presuppositional Reasoning with False Faiths] by Dr. Greg L. Bahnsen on April 8, 2009</ref>}}
== Atheism, epistemology and presuppositional apologetics ==
== Atheism, epistemology and presuppositional apologetics ==