Archive for the ‘Presuppositionalism’ Category
A Tribute to the Retiring Alvin Plantinga
Alvin Plantinga has been a professor of philosophy for over 50 years, spending his last 28 years at Notre Dame. To be quite frank he is one of the best philosophers in the past few centuries. I think the greatest complement I have ever heard of Plantinga came a Jewish atheist professor at UF, who said something to the effect, ‘Alvin Plantinga has single handidly made Christianity respectable again in philosophy… his arguments are so damn good, that I have reconsidered my atheism.’
In analytic philosophy circles, Christianity was seen as an epistemological joke. Plantinga painstakingly carved out a space for Christianity back at the discussion table in even the most hostile departments. It is perhaps somewhat ironic that Plantinga was at Notre Dame considering his theological and philosophical heritage was from the Reformed tradition. However, from what I understand the President of Notre Dame at the time wanted the best Christian thinking and at that time it happened to be Reformed epistemology. So, Notre Dame grabbed guys like Plantinga, Alasdair MacIntyre, and Peter van Inwagen.
Here is a poor attempt at a brief and uncomprehensive summary his contribution to Christian thought:
Warranted Christian Belief and God as properly basic (Reformed Epistemology)
In Warranted Christian Belief, Plantinga makes a case that several things are properly basic. Something that is properly basis does not require proof and functions as the bedrock that we layer our daily lives on top of. One such example is Descartes’ famous “cogito ergo sum” or “I think therefore I exist.” The most important thing that Plantinga voraciously argues for is that the existence of God is properly basic [and the atheists gasp, throwing the yellow flag calling for a 5 yard illegal motion penalty]. Plantinga makes a very good case (along with the presuppositionalists) that belief in God requires no proof or justification. Consider the following – can you prove that other minds exist. It sounds like a stupid question, but can you? I could be a brain in a vat, or Neo in the Matrix, or the muse of some evil genius and all of what I think is reality could be completely constructed, and I am on the only thinking being. None of us thinks or believes that we are the only mind in existence. In simple terms, the belief in other minds is properly basic in a similar way that belief in God is properly basic. Plantinga spends the rest of the book defending that the Christian worldview is justifiable.
Free-Will Defense Against the Logical Problem of Evil
There are several Problem(s) of Evil in philosophy. The most common had been the logical problem of evil:
1. If a perfectly good god exists, then evil does not. 2. There is evil in the world. 3. Therefore, a perfectly good god does not exist.
Most philosophers have conceded that Plantinga has solved the logical problem of evil in his Free-Will Defense, and have given up on the logical problem of evil. First off, it is important to say that his argument is a defense and not a theodicy. A theodicy is a justification for why evil exists in a world created by God. A defense exists merely to show a logically possible set of premises that refutes the trilemma above. Plantinga’s argument goes like such:
A world containing creatures who are significantly free (and freely perform more good than evil actions) is more valuable, all else being equal, than a world containing no free creatures at all. Now God can create free creatures, but He can’t cause or determine them to do only what is right. For if He does so, then they aren’t significantly free after all; they do not do what is right freely. To create creatures capable of moral good, therefore, He must create creatures capable of moral evil; and He can’t give these creatures the freedom to perform evil and at the same time prevent them from doing so. As it turned out, sadly enough, some of the free creatures God created went wrong in the exercise of their freedom; this is the source of moral evil. The fact that free creatures sometimes go wrong, however, counts neither against God’s omnipotence nor against His goodness; for He could have forestalled the occurrence of moral evil only by removing the possibility of moral good. God, Freedom, and Evil, pp. 166-167.
In undergrad, I wrote a paper reworking Plantinga’s argument removing a free-will view of Divine Sovereignty and human responsibility and inserting a compatibilist view in its place. I believe that my paper did no harm to Plantinga’s argument and that his argument is still compatible with compatibilism.
Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism
The evolutionary argument against naturalism is sheer brilliance. He argues that if evolution and naturalism are true then it seriously undermines both evolution and naturalism. Naturalism is the idea that we hold ideas “true” today because they have “survival value.” If evolution and naturalism are true, then human thinking evolved to produce ideas that have survival value and not necessarily truth. The set of beliefs that maximizes my ability to eat, reproduce, and fight is not always what is true. Evolution and naturalism, therefore, are tuned to survival rather than truth. Therefore, this casts significant doubt on trusting our thinking itself, and included in that thinking are both the ideas of evolution or naturalism themselves. Genius.
Modal Logic Version of Ontological Argument
It took me 3 years, 4 philosophy professors, and 4 versions of the argument to finally understand its genius. It is not sophistry; it is not a parlor trick; it is not a aberration of grammar. Do not go chasing the ontological argument unless you have copious amounts of time, a willingness to make your brain hurt, and the patience to deconstruct why Gaunilo and Kant’s objections are incorrect. If you are up to the task, start here.
In the wake of evangelicalism’s massive receding from all public spheres (particularly the University), Plantinga has nearly single-handidly re-carved out a space for the Christian to have a voice in philosophy and respectability in the University. You would be wise to have a basic understanding of his thinking.
Thank you Alvin. I am deeply indebted.
The Snake Eats Its Own Tail
Protagoras (490-420 bc): “Man is the measure of all things.”
Gordon Clark, Thales to Dewey, p. 69:
Such is the fate of all relativistic theories, ancient or modern. They are self-destructive because self-contradictory. When a pragmatist asserts the impossibility of attaining the absolute, when an instrumentalist with his emphasis on change deplores the dogmatism of unchanging truth, or when a Freudian dismisses conscious reasoning as hypocritical rationalization, he means to except his own view. It is absolutely true that we miss the absolute; it is fixed truth that nothing is fixed; it is validly reasoned that reasoning is hypocrisy. Objections to dogmatism are always dogmatic, and relativisms are always asserted absolutely. For this the Man-measure theory must be rejected, and knowledge is shown to be other than perception.
3 Month Introspective
Introspective
So, I’ve been blogging consistently for three months. This is the week of Christmas and I’ll be all over the place. I thought I would briefly summarize the 3 months of blog series on here:
Blaise Pascal: We took a look at Blaise Pascal’s thinking, its use of aphorism and its relationship to both tri-perspectivalism and presuppositionalism. We also looked at his use of aphorism and his warnings against deism and atheism.
Thoughts on Evangelicalism Past, Present, and Future, Parts 1-7: We defined the term evangelical. We looked at its historical roots in the First Great Awakening, Second Great Awakening, and its ties to celebrity culture, democritization of knowledge, and modernism. Then we looked at the roots of liberalism, the Protestant split and suburbanization, and defined and outlined evangelical populism and their game plan for reaching America. Finally we assessed the current status of American evangelicalism and then made some predictions of future trends.
Introduction to Apologetics, Parts 1-7: We looked in broad strokes at the various schools of apologetics. We then took a more in-depth look at: Classical Apologetics, Evidentialist Apologetics, Presuppositional Apologetics, and the specific apologetics of Blaise Pascal and Alvin Plantinga. Finally, we employed the three phases football as an analogy for the different apologetic schools and I likened Tim Tebow to the presuppositionalists.
Thoughts on Evangelicalism Moving Forward, Parts 1-10: We looked at some analysis of some shifts evangelicalism will need to make moving forward: Doctrine, Worldview, Urbanization, Globality/Mobility, “Post-Modernism,” American Culture(s), Contextualization, Balance, and Final Analysis.
Top ~10 Books by Topic:
Top 10 Systematic Theology Texts
Top 10 Books on Science and Christianity
Top 10 Books on Christian Biography
Top 15 Books on Status of American Evangelicalism
Top 10 Books on Church History
Top 40 Books to Read While in College
Top 10 Books on Missions, Discipleship, and Evangelism
The 25 Most Destructive Books Ever Written…
Top 10 Books on Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility
Best Creeds, Confessions, and Catechisms of the Christian Church
A Comprehensive List of Top 10 Book Lists of 2009
Up Next: We will be looking at some thoughts on the economy and investment and then delve into the mind of Friedrich Nietzsche…
Top 10 Apologetic Works
Apologetics to the Glory of God
This is a highly selective list of what I think are both good and useful apologetic works.
1. Apologetics to the Glory of God by John Frame [y, l, e, p, s]
At the end of the day, I think the presuppositionalists have the most Biblical and best defense of Christianity. This is the best of the presuppositional works.
2. Pensees by Blaise Pascal [y, l, e, p, s]
This book should come as no surprise considering the title of this blog. Pascal speaks to the heart and the mind. His analysis of man’s greatness/wretchedness, propensity towards boredom, and love of diversions make so much sense of the human experience in light of the Christian story.
3. Warranted Christian Belief by Alvin Plantinga [p, s]
This is Plantinga’s magnum opus. He presents his epistemology. It is not an easy read, a background in philosophy would be very helpful.
4. Tactics: A Gameplan For Discussing Your Christian Convictions by Gregory Koukl [y, l, e, p, s]
While not necessarily an apologetic work, this is a helpful book for creating discussion about your faith. I included it here because it is so helpful and practical.
5. Darwin’s Black Box by Michael Behe [l, e, p, s]
See write-up here.
6. The Reason for God by Tim Keller [c, y, l, e, p, s]
Keller presents a third way between pure science/reason and pure faith.
7. Cornelius Van Til: An Analysis of His Thought by John Frame [e, p, s]
If you are seriously interested in presuppositional thought, then this is a good place to dig deeper.
8. Defending Your Faith by R.C. Sproul [y, l, e, p, s]
R.C. has put together a very solid and readable introduction to apologetics. A good first book on the subject.
9. God and Other Minds by Alvin Plantinga [p, s]
Here, Plantinga discusses the classical arguments for/against God. Also, his God, Freedom, and Evil is pretty good. It is not an easy read. A background in philosophy and/or logic is very helpful.
10. Every Thought Captive by Richard Pratt [c, y, l, e, p, s]
This brief book is an accessible and good read for everyone.
(c=children; y=young adult; l=lay leader; e=elder; p=pastor; s=scholar)
Introduction to Apologetics, Part 7: Concluding Thoughts
Tim Tebow as Presuppositionalist
I see a place for all the apologetic schools in defense of Christianity. There are some that are firmly entrenched in their particular school or tradition, and for the most part I understand where they are coming from. I happen to think the presuppositionatlists are head and shoulders above the other schools and I happen to agree that their approach is the most Biblical, and therefore the most God glorifying. However, I see a lot of value in the classical and evidentialist schools and I don’t think we should throw the baby out with the bath water. From a personal perspective, intelligent design, the teleological argument, and the ontological argument had a profound impact on my life.
I think the main value of evidences are to bolster pre-existing faith by showing that our faith is not unreasonable, unjustified, or unwarranted. I think the main value of presuppositional apologetics is calling all non-Christian worldviews to task over the fact that they hold mutually exclusive propositions and cannot account for all things.
Perhaps its a silly analogy, but I liken apologetics to the three phases of football: offense, defense, and special teams. The presuppositionalists are on the offensive challenging false notions in other worldviews. The classical and evidentialist apologetists are defending the reasonability of the Christian faith. Then there are guys like Blaise Pascal, and Alvin Plantinga that specialize in kickoffs, punts, PATs, and field goals. Together they present a coherent, consistent, and believable Christianity that makes sense of existence intellectually, emotionally, and experientially.
Introduction to Apologetics, Part 6: Alvin Plantinga
Alvin Plantinga, Genius
I remember being introduced to Alvin Plantinga, first in my Philosophy of Religion course at University of Florida. I recall my professor, who was a gregarious Jewish atheist, saying something to the effect, ‘Alvin Plantinga has single handidly made Christianity respectable again in philosophy… his arguments are so damn good, that I have reconsidered my atheism.’ This piqued my attention and after reading several different arguments, journal articles, and Warranted Christian Belief, I wholeheartedly concur with my former Professor.
Like Blaise Pascal, some Christian apologists transcend categorical description. Alvin Plantinga is one of those that you cannot pigeon hole into a single camp. His epistemology relies heavily on presuppositional thinking, Scottish Common Sense Philosophy, and Reformed Thought. His free-will defense against the problem of evil relies on a Molinist position of Divine sovereignty (at best). His ontological argument employs modal logic. His default writing style is Analytic Philosophy. He teaches at a Catholic University (Notre Dame). Plantinga is a strange amalgam indeed, and in this writer’s view, a good balance of cross-pollination.
Here is an attempt at a brief summary of his contribution to Christian thought:
Warranted Christian Belief and God as properly basic (Reformed Epistemology)
In Warranted Christian Belief, Plantinga makes a case that several things are properly basic. Something that is properly basis does not require proof and functions as the bedrock that we layer our daily lives on top of. One such example is Descartes’ famous “cogito ergo sum” or “I think therefore I exist.” The most important thing that Plantinga voraciously argues for is that the existence of God is properly basic [and the atheists gasp, throwing the yellow flag calling for a 5 yard illegal motion penalty]. Plantinga makes a very good case (along with the presuppositionalists) that belief in God requires no proof or justification. Consider the following – can you prove that other minds exist. It sounds like a stupid question, but can you? I could be a brain in a vat, or Neo in the Matrix, or the muse of some evil genius and all of what I think is reality could be completely constructed, and I am on the only thinking being. None of us thinks or believes that we are the only mind in existence. In simple terms, the belief in other minds is properly basic in a similar way that belief in God is properly basic. Plantinga spends the rest of the book defending that the Christian worldview is justifiable.
Free-Will Defense Against the Logical Problem of Evil
There are several Problem(s) of Evil in philosophy. The most common had been the logical problem of evil:
1. If a perfectly good god exists, then evil does not. 2. There is evil in the world. 3. Therefore, a perfectly good god does not exist.
Most philosophers have conceded that Plantinga has solved the logical problem of evil in his Free-Will Defense, and have given up on the logical problem of evil. First off, it is important to say that his argument is a defense and not a theodicy. A theodicy is a justification for why evil exists in a world created by God. A defense exists merely to show a logically possible set of premises that refutes the trilemma above. Plantinga’s argument goes like such:
A world containing creatures who are significantly free (and freely perform more good than evil actions) is more valuable, all else being equal, than a world containing no free creatures at all. Now God can create free creatures, but He can’t cause or determine them to do only what is right. For if He does so, then they aren’t significantly free after all; they do not do what is right freely. To create creatures capable of moral good, therefore, He must create creatures capable of moral evil; and He can’t give these creatures the freedom to perform evil and at the same time prevent them from doing so. As it turned out, sadly enough, some of the free creatures God created went wrong in the exercise of their freedom; this is the source of moral evil. The fact that free creatures sometimes go wrong, however, counts neither against God’s omnipotence nor against His goodness; for He could have forestalled the occurrence of moral evil only by removing the possibility of moral good. God, Freedom, and Evil, pp. 166-167.
In undergrad, I wrote a paper reworking Plantinga’s argument removing a free-will view of Divine Sovereignty and human responsibility and inserting a compatibilist view in its place. I believe that my paper did no harm to Plantinga’s argument and that his argument is still compatible with compatibilism.
Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism
The evolutionary argument against naturalism is sheer brilliance. He argues that if evolution and naturalism are true then it seriously undermines both evolution and naturalism. Naturalism is the idea that we hold ideas “true” today because they have “survival value.” If evolution and naturalism are true, then human thinking evolved to produce ideas that have survival value and not necessarily truth. The set of beliefs that maximizes my ability to eat, reproduce, and fight is not always what is true. Evolution and naturalism, therefore, are tuned to survival rather than truth. Therefore, this casts significant doubt on trusting our thinking itself, and included in that thinking are both the ideas of evolution or naturalism themselves. Genius.
Modal Logic Version of Ontological Argument
It took me 3 years, 4 philosophy professors, and 4 versions of the argument to finally understand its genius. It is not sophistry; it is not a parlor trick; it is not a aberration of grammar. Do not go chasing the ontological argument unless you have copious amounts of time, a willingness to make your brain hurt, and the patience to deconstruct why Gaunilo and Kant’s objections are incorrect. If you are up to the task, start here.
In the wake of evangelicalism’s massive receding from all public spheres (particularly the University), Plantinga has nearly single-handidly re-carved out a space for the Christian to have a voice in philosophy and respectability in the University. You would be wise to have a basic understanding of his thinking.
Up next, concluding thoughts on the relative merits of the different apologetic schools.
Introduction to Apologetics, Part 5: Blaise Pascal
Blaise Pascal: Apologist to the Skeptic
I can think of no Christian writer, not Newman even, more to be commended than Pascal to those who doubt, but who have the mind to conceive, and the sensibility to feel, the disorder, the futility, the meaninglessness, the mystery of life and suffering, and who can only find peace through a satisfaction of the whole being. – T.S. Eliot
If you do not know me (or could not guess from the main title of this blog), then you may not know of my sincere affection for the thoughts of Blaise Pascal (1623-1662). Previously on this blog, I wrote this short bio:
Blaise Pascal was a scientist, mathematician, philosopher, and theologian. In science, he essentially invented the hydraulic press, syringes, vacuums, and the barometer. In mathematics, he made advances in probability theory, game theory, geometry, and foundational presuppositions to economics. In philosophy and theology, Pascal had one work published after his death – Pensees (French for ‘thoughts’). Pascal lived an anguishing and brief life of intense physical pain (likely stomach cancer and brain lesions/damage) and joy. He died at age 39.
Further Background
Adding to this, later in life Pascal was a Jansenist. Jansenism was a small branch of Catholicism highly influenced by St. Augustine (354-430). Following Augustine, Jansenism has a high view of God and highlights God’s sovereignty in salvation. Augustine was critical and seminal in the Protestant Reformation and, as such, much of Pascal’s thoughts appear Protestant and Calvinistic.
Pascal was substantially ahead of his time in science, mathematics, and philosophy (and may still be). Pascal also transcends many different categories. He is esteemed by both (some) Catholics and Protestants. He is balanced on the role of reason and faith. In the wake of the Thirty Years War, a European civil war over religion, which most historians point to as the death of religion in Europe, Pascal was vehemently defending Christianity. He was a sharp critic of Rene Descartes and the foolishness of the Enlightenment Project, three hundred years before it became vogue to bash on modernism and the Enlightenment. Pascal was both incredibly thoughtful and emotionally passionate in his Christianity.
Pascal’s Apologetic
Pascal’s apologetic is brilliant. His argumentation does not necessarily follow the paradigm of Premise 1, Premise 2, Premise 3, Premise 4, and therefore Conclusion. Pascal appeals to individual experience, community experience, reason, and the Scriptures. While the others of his day were extolling the absolute infallibility and perfection of pure reason, Pascal pointed out its weaknesses and inability to provide the necessary answers to being and experience.
Pascal starts by showing the boundaries of what reason alone can and cannot do:
On Reason
173. If we submit everything to reason our religion will be left with nothing mysterious or supernatural. If we offend the principles of reason our religion will be absurd and ridiculous.
183. Two excesses: to exclude reason, to admit nothing but reason.
188. Reason’s last step is the recognition that there are an infinite number of things which are beyond it. It is merely feeble in it does not go as far as to realize that. If natural things are beyond it, what are we to say about supernatural things?
Pascal continues to challenge scientific rationalism (the Enlightenment Project), mainly by pointing out weaknesses in Descartes:
On Descartes (and by corollary the Enlightenment Project)
78. Descartes: useless and uncertain
553. Write against those who probe science to deeply. Descartes.
Pascal then examines many opposites, paradoxes, and antinomies: Faith and reason. Greatness and wretchedness. Meaninglessness and Meaning. Heart and Mind. Certainty and uncertainty. Boredom and happiness. Diversion and rest. He concludes that the true religion must account for all of these extremes. He also puts forth an epistemology:
110. We know the truth not only through our reason but also through our heart. It is through the latter we know first principles, and reason, which has nothing to do with it, tries in vain to refute them. The sceptics have no other object than that, and they work at it to no purpose. We know that we are not dreaming, but, however unable we may be to prove it rationally, our inability proves nothing but the weakness of our reason, and not the uncertainty of our knowledge, as they maintain. For knowledge of first principles, like space, time, motion, number, is as solid as any derived through reason, and it is on such knowledge coming from the heart and instinct, that reason has to depend and base all its argument. The heart feels that there are three spatial dimensions and that there is an infinite series of numbers, and reason goes on to demonstrate that there are no two square numbers of which one is double the other. Principles are felt, propositions are proved, and both with certainty through different means… Our inability must therefore serve only to humble reason, which would like to be the judge of everything, but not to confute our certainty. As if reason were the only way we could learn!
On Faith
185. Faith certainly tells us what the senses do not, but not the contrary of what they see; it is above, not against them.
Pascal shows his reader the wretchedness of his estate, the weakness of his reason, and shows him the true happiness of Christ and the Gospel against that dark backdrop. Pascal transcends the different apologetic categories we have listed thus far. He was far before his time and embodies the essence of the classic Richard Pratt quote, “Because the deck of life is always shifting balance can be nothing more than momentary synchronicity.”
Concluding Thoughts
In this writers opinion, if the modern era had read Pascal more widely the arrogance of the Enlightenment Project and modernism may have never occurred and Europe might still be substantially Christian today. Pascal’s non-linear methodology also suits a third way between the arrogance of modernism and uncertainty of post-modernism. Tolle lege!
Introduction to Apologetics, Part 4: Presuppositional Apologetics
On day one of every Intro to Philosophy, Philosophy of Religion, Problem of God, or any other similar course the same thing occurs. Following all the necessary syllabus details there comes a statement like this:
This is an academic institution, as such, we are examiners of religious and philosophical questions. In this course, we are not practitioners of religion, hence appeals to religious texts are outside of the scope of this course. We will examine the topics with rigorous rational thinking.
Herein lies the perhaps the biggest bait-and-switch at the University. As a Christian you are now disallowed to bring any aspect of the Bible into the discussion. This is strange because it assumes that either A. The Bible is entirely irrational or B. to bring the Bible into an academic discussion makes us somehow practioners of Christianity. As an undergrad, I remember sitting there and thinking, there is something wrong about this statement, but lacking the ability to deconstruct the statement.
I think it is statements like the one above that have caused many apologists to battle only employing the tools of reason and rationality, largely leaving Scripture out of the discussion. This is sad and problematic as it virtually conceded a loss. Recall that presuppositional apologetics presupposes the existence of God and the truth of the Scriptures. Presuppositional apologetics seeks not to defend Christianity with rational evidences but rather attacks the false assumptions (presuppositions) of the unbeliever. Say, a non-believer believes that man is inherently good and does not believe in God or His Word… all the evidences in the world will do no good until his incorrect and inconsistent presuppositions are exposed. It also challenges whether rational arguments are any good at all being that all the reason in the world will do no good unless God regenerates their heart.
The sum total of all truth is that which has been revealed in the Scriptures (Special Revelation), plus that which is commonly revealed naturally (General Revelation). General and Special Revelation have a symbiotic relationship. We need to be able to read (general revelation) in order to understand the Scriptures (special revelation). We need the Scriptures (special revelation) to make sense of our senses, emotions, and world (general revelation). The sad story in academia listed above are demanding that Special Revelation not be brought into the classroom. The problem is that:
[T]he truths of experience are not self-explanatory. Instead they merely constitute the data that cries out to be explained within an overarching worldview. Why is it that the bits of matter we call our bodies have consciousness and are able to navigate the world so effectively? Why are we capable of building societies with some measure of justice and compassion?… why is it possible for humans to calculate a trajectory and land a spacecraft on another planet? What kind of world permits these fascinating achievements? Our claim as Christians is that only a biblically based worldview offers a complete and consistent explanation of why we are capable of knowing scientific, moral, and mathematical truths. Christianity is the key that fits the lock of the universe.
Moreover, since all other worldviews are false keys, we can be absolutely confident, when talking with nonbelievers, that they themselves know things that are not accounted for by their own worldview – whatever it may be. Or to turn it around, they will not be able to live consistently on the basis of their own worldview. Since their metaphysical beliefs do not fit the world God created, their lives will be more or less inconsistent with those beliefs. Living in the real world requires them to function in ways that are not support by their worldview. Nancy Pearcey in Total Truth, pp. 318-319.
In other words, the world and our senses cannot interpret themselves, they require a grid in which to understand them. In the University, on day one they are telling you that you cannot bring any special revelation in which to interpret the world, history, reason, logic, ‘good,’ or ‘evil.’ The problem is that general revelation will never be sufficient to have any saving knowledge of Jesus, nor will general revelation ever be sufficient to have a complete worldview. It cannot account for morality (moral good or moral evil). It cannot account for facts. It cannot account for language. It cannot account for logic.
Presuppositional Apologetics primarily has its roots in the teaching of Cornelius Van Til (1895-1987). Two of Van Til’s students Greg Bahnsen (1948-1995) and John Frame (1939-) continued the tradition making presuppositionalism more widely known.
Here are three articles written by John Frame to further introduce you to presuppositional thought: “Presuppositional Apologetics,” “Presuppositional Apologetics: An Introduction,” and “Monergism: Presuppositional Apologetics.”
Up next, the apologetic thought of Blaise Pascal.
Introduction to Apologetics, Part 2: Classical Apologetics
St. Augustine
Again, classical apologetics focuses on the rational basis of the Christian faith. It establishes this through several rational arguments for the existence of God (Cosmological, Teleological, and Ontological), and evidences for the reliability of the Bible and miracles.
Some main characters:
-The Apostle Paul (first century) would sometimes cite the resurrection and fulfillment of miracles in his preaching of the Gospel (Acts 17…).
–Justin Martyr (100-165 ad) focuses much of his attention defending Christianity to the Roman government and arguing against prominent heretics of that day, particularly Marcion. Justin keys in on defending the Incarnation of Jesus as the Divine Logos, emphasizing prophecies fulfilled, and highlighting the reality of Jesus’ Second Coming. [there are some presuppositional veins in Justin Martyr as well – most notably, he thinks God’s existence needs no proof]
–St. Augustine wrote very widely defending Christianity against the heresy of Pelagius as well as positively refining/defining many central elements of orthodox Christianity.
–St. Anselm (1033-1109) is most famous for the original formulation of the Ontological Argument. The ontological argument for the existence of God is exceedingly difficult to understand, requiring heavy thinking to comprehend its brilliance. I happen to think that the ontological argument actually establishes the existence of God. I also happen to think that it is the second best argument behind the presuppositional Transcendental Argument. I think the best formulation of the ontological argument is Alvin Plantinga’s version employing modal logic.
–Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) also wrote very widely, providing much of the foundations for the Roman Catholic tradition up til Vatican II. Aquinas is a central figure in Classical Apologetics for his 5 arguments for the existence of God. The 5 arguments are:
- Many things are moving. Everything that is moved was moved by something. An infinite chain of movers is impossible. Therefore there had to be an unmoved mover. We call this unmoved mover God.
- Many things are caused. Existence is a series of causes and effects. There had to be a beginning, hence there must be a first cause to this chain of causes and effects. We call this unmoved mover God.
- Some things in the Universe may or may not exist, these beings exist contingently. However, it is impossible for everything in the Universe to be contingent, because something exists right now. Therefore, there must be a being whose existence is not contingent but necessary. We call this necessarily existent being God.
- Different perfections of a wide range of degrees can be evidenced in the Universe. These degrees of perfection assume an ultimate standard. The ultimate standard is God.
- All natural bodies work toward a purpose. These objects are unintelligent in an of themselves. Acting towards a purpose is a sign of intelligence. Therefore, there is an intelligent being that guides these natural bodies to those purposes. This intelligent being is God.
In recent times several key apologists continue on the rich tradition behind them: R.C. Sproul, Norman Geisler, William Lane Craig, and J.P. Moreland.
Up next, we will take a look at Evidentialist Apologetics.
Introduction to Apologetics… Part 1
Paul, The First Apologist
I think there are two main barriers to people consistently sharing their faith, fear of man and lack of knowledge. We will do a series of blog posts to introduce the different schools of Christian apologetics.
[Christian] Apologetics means quite simply a defense of the Christian faith. Broadly speaking, we can use the sports metaphor of offense and defense to categorize the different schools of apologetics (recognizing that all schools have both offensive and defensive elements).
DEFENSIVE – broadly speaking, defensive arguments appeal to reason
Classical Apologetics: Classical apologetics focuses on the rational basis of the Christian faith. It establishes this through several rational arguments for the existence of God (Cosmological, Teleological, and Ontological), and evidences for the reliability of the Bible and miracles.
Evidential Apologetics: In one way, evidential apologetics is a subset of classical apologetics, but in the last century has grown to be a stand alone school. It emphasizes the rational evidences for Christianity, namely, miracles, fulfilled Biblical prophecies, and how our world is incredibly fine-tuned (Teleological Argument aka Argument from Design).
OFFENSIVE – broadly speaking, offensive arguments point to the necessary foundations that precede and make sense of reason
Presuppositional Apologetics: Presuppositional apologetics presupposes the existence of God and the truth of the Scriptures. Presuppositional apologetics seeks not to defend Christianity with rational evidences but rather attacks the false assumptions (presuppositions) of the unbeliever. Say, a non-believer believes that man is inherently good and does not believe in God or His Word… all the evidences in the world will do no good until his incorrect and inconsistent presuppositions are exposed. It also challenges whether rational arguments are any good at all being that all the reason in the world will do no good unless God regenerates their heart.
Pascal: Pascal challenges whether we can reason ourselves into heaven, being that the path to the Kingdom must pass through the heart. For Pascal, ‘the heart has reasons of which the mind knows nothing of.’ For Pascal, faith and reason go together, but ultimately it is evidences that confirm the faith and not the evidences that lead to faith.
If we submit everything to reason our religion will be left with nothing mysterious or supernatural. If we offend the principles of reason our religion will be absurd and ridiculous.
Alvin Plantinga (Reformed Epistemology): Plantinga argues that belief in God is a properly basic belief and therefore requires no justification. He has also defended Christianity against the problem of evil and put forth a modal logic version of ontological argument.
Just for kicks, here is a video of evidentialist William Lane Craig, cross-pollinating a bit, employing some presuppositional tools against scientific naturalism:
Next, we shall take a deeper look at each of the different schools and assess their relative strengths and weaknesses…
Modern Pensées 