Here are links I’ve noticed around the web that touches on Presuppositional apologetics.
1.) Motion Presupposes God by Mike Robinson.
2.) Review of John Frame’s The Escondido Theology.
3.) In Defense of Blasphemy Codes by Doug Wilson.
4.) Miracles and My Father’s Death over at Triablogue.
5.) Consistent Atheism in Action at Major University by Gary DeMar.
6.) Would You Kill Baby Hitler? and the Issue of Old Testament “Genocide” by Steve Hays
7.) Evangelism, Apologetics and the Sovereignty of God by Joseph Torres.
[...] out Slimjim’s latest Presuppositional Apologetics Links HERE Filed Under: Apologetics, Presuppositional Epistemology Tagged With: presuppositional [...]
It’s been awhile since I’ve heard the term “presuppositional apologetics.” Do any of the authors here care to engage in a discussion about it? For me this would be a learning experience, and I expect an enjoyable one. I might be able to offer some useful feedback. I am not a Christian, but I used to be a rather dedicated one and I do have formal training in philosophy.
I gather that crucial to this view of apologetics is the claim that it is not reasonable for a person to withhold belief in the existence of God. This strikes me as an ambitious claim. Can it be supported on grounds that someone like myself might see the merit of? If so, which such grounds would you consider to be the most promising?
Hi Craig,
Do listen to this debate first. It will navigate our discussions better.
http://veritasdomain.wordpress.com/2006/12/05/greg-bahnsen-vs-gordon-stein-the-great-debate/
Btw, this is the famous Great Debate.
Thanks Andy!
Hi Andy, I remember listening to this debate years ago on a cassette tape. I was quite excited about it at the time. But the debate is one-sided in the sense that Stein is totally ill-equipped to respond Bahnsen. Is there any recording or transcript of Bahnsen trying the same arguments against a capable philosopher?
Craig,
I have many questions.
You said you were a Christian before. What is your understanding of what Christianity is from the the standpoint of a Christian? I’m guess I’m more intrigued with your statement of being a former Christian.
What area of emphasis was your concentration in your philosophical education?
In regards to your original question, I think some of the authors of the links I’ve provided here are available for feedback as well. Concerning Bahnsen debating a philosopher, he has debated George Smith and that’s available here: http://veritasdomain.wordpress.com/2007/10/24/greg-bahnsen-vs-george-smith/ . James Anderson recently wrote for a journal on the topic of Presuppositionalism available here: http://www.proginosko.com/2011/12/the-lord-of-non-contradiction/ ; that is also his website where you can interact with him.
Thank you for the links.
In saying that I was formerly a Christian, I meant at least that I formerly guided my life and thinking by what I took to be the historic Christian faith, with an emphasis on the teachings of the New Testament. I don’t mean to put too much emphasis on this point, but only to relate the fact that I do have personal familiarity with Christianity. My area of concentration is contemporary moral philosophy.
Here’s my quick response to the items to which you linked. Anderson’s key premise that intentionality is a sufficient condition of the mental strikes me as insufficiently argued. Anderson writes,
But why not alternatively think that the intentionality of thoughts/minds derives from the intentionality of propositions? That is, instead of saying that the intentionality characteristic of propositions derives from their relation to minds, we could just as plausibly say that the intentionality characteristic of minds (or thoughts and propositional attitudes generally) derives from their relation to propositions. That is, one could say that the reason why mental things characteristically possess intentionality is because minds are able to entertain propositions. Whether or not propositions are “physical” is beside the point. If they are physical, then Anderson is wrong to say that “no physical structures could be ascribed truth-values.” But we aren’t committed to thinking that propositions are physical.
I was a little disappointed to discover that the George Smith here is not the philosopher of science and logic at Tufts who goes by the same name. Bahnsen suggests a variety of ambitious transcendental arguments; on any one such argument, it’d be most informative to hear him go head-to-head with a specialist in the specific area.
Craig,
Just looking at the trajectory of our conversation, I’m curious if you believe George Smith to be a capable philosopher?
Concerning your take on Welty’s and Anderson’s essay, if the intentionality of thoughts/minds derives from the intentionality of propositions how do you account for the aspectual shape of propositions?
Craig,
Seeing that you invoke your familiarity with Christianity and the fact that you no longer embrace it, I do wonder how you would summarize your take on the historic Christian faith, and what the content of that Christianity that you were personally familiar with look like. I’m wondering about the grasp and personal familiarity you have with Christianity or the type of Christianity that you no longer embrace. So how would you summarize the Christian faith?
Hi Slimjim, for the briefest summary of some of the key tenets, I would have once affirmed that the Bible is the inspired and only infallible and authoritative written word of God; that there is one God, eternally existent in three persons; that Jesus atoned for our sins and was bodily resurrected, that the only way to be reconciled to God is through repentance and faith in Christ; that regeneration by the Holy Spirit is essential for salvation. Hopefully this helps.