Does "presuppositionalist" Apologetics Gain Converts?

[♦ ficino ♦]

I saw a Calvinist come onto a Catholic blog and say in a comment that natural philosophy as used by Catholics doesn't get converts. He said that "fideism" and presuppositionalist apologetics lead to converts.

 

Does anyone actually become "born again" or whatever because of presuppositionalist apologetics? On the other hand, I know of some self-proclaimed atheists who became Catholic through natural theology.

 

(fideism: saying that religious truths can only be grasped by faith rather than that some truths, like God's existence, can be known through reason)

(natural theology: the attempt to demonstrate by argument that there is one God who created and sustains everything and is like a person, that there is soul, that there are objective moral facts, etc.)

(presuppositionalist apologetics: convince the unbeliever that s/he can't know anything unless some being [God] knows everything and reveals some of it to us, so they need to presuppose the Bible is true.)

 

I thought presuppositionalist apologetics just made Calvinist types feel secure. I didn't know any non-Christians were convinced by the line that they can't know anything unless the Bible is inerrant.

[disillusioned]

Does anyone actually become "born again" or whatever because of presuppositionalist apologetics? On the other hand, I know of some self-proclaimed atheists who became Catholic through natural theology.

 

I don't know about anyone, but I certainly don't know of anyone who was convinced of Christianity through presuppositionalist apologetics.

 

I thought presuppositionalist apologetics just made Calvinist types feel secure. I didn't know any non-Christians were convinced by the line that they can't know anything unless the Bible is inerrant.

 

This has also been my experience. If you discount the indoctrinated (like me), then I think that mainly presuppositional apologetics is convincing only to those who already believe. This may not always have been the case, and it may not be the case everywhere, but most secular adults that I know would find the premise of presuppositionalism to be fatuous.

[Jedah]

No.

 

Presuppositional apologetics can be summarized as trying to convince you that it's OK for Christians to use circular reasoning but not OK for anyone else.

 

There is not a single example of presuppositional apologetics I have seen where "God"/"Jesus" etc could not be replaced with "FSM"/"Invisible pink unicorn". Asserting that we need to presuppose the existence of FSM to be able to know anything makes just as much rational sense. I call this an automatic bullshit detector. Any time you can switch a persons reasoning with an obviously false parody without changing a single thing, their claim can be considered discredited by default.

 

It's a form of apologetics designed to allow the already delusional to stay deluded. Nothing more.

[Shinzon]

Depends on the atheist, if your a dye in wool philosophical materalist naturaliat etc it may depending on the suitation gain traction. Personally i disbelieve due to lack of evidence so the burdeon of proof is on others cause i dont have a "worldview."

[Thought2Much]

Considering that I can't think of one presuppositionalist that isn't a complete, smug, condescending, offputting asshole, I'd say the answer is no, presuppositionalism doesn't lead to conversions, at least not for people that weren't already Christians of some sort.

[L.B.]

And what a fucking list of things to presuppose!

 

You'd be considered a lunatic or mentally retarded if you presupposed the veracity of the Rings novels, but you MUST presuppose the magical bullshit in the ENTIRE bible in order to get magically zapped by "god" and turned into a TrueBeliever.

 

Has anyone ever posited that it's far, far easier to believe in a literal, historical Holmes and presuppose the historicity and factual nature of the works of A.C. Doyle than it is to accept the literal veracity of almost ANY single story in the bible?

[Mike D]

Who needs apologists or presuppositionalists to get conversions?  All we need to do is spread the Good News ™ that if you don't open your heart to Jebus this very instant, the horrors that his dad has in store for you upon your death is so twisted and sadistic that it will make the gas chambers at Dauchau look like a relaxing day at the spa 

 

The Good News ™ will win them over every time :)

[rjn]

Who needs apologists or presuppositionalists to get conversions?  All we need to do is spread the Good News ™ that if you don't open your heart to Jebus this very instant, the horrors that his dad has in store for you upon your death is so twisted and sadistic that it will make the gas chambers at Dauchau look like a relaxing day at the spa 

 

The Good News ™ will win them over every time

 

Shit, those are truly some Good News! You make it sound so appealing, where do I sign up?

[dangitbobby83]

Who needs apologists or presuppositionalists to get conversions?  All we need to do is spread the Good News that if you don't open your heart to Jebus this very instant, the horrors that his dad has in store for you upon your death is so twisted and sadistic that it will make the gas chambers at Dauchau look like a relaxing day at the spa 

 

The Good News will win them over every time

 

Sold. Back to Christianity I go!

 

And no - I don't think any christian apologetics convinces anyone of anything. It's meant to make currently believers not feel like idiots for believing fairy tales, that their beliefs are reasonable and rational.

 

If you want to win converts, you have to either:

 

A. Indoctrinate them from youth.

B. Catch them when they are emotionally broken and not able to make rational decisions. Then claim god has sent you there to help them see the truth and once they accept Jesus, then all their problems will go away because *reasons*. Of course, then they also get help from a church community (which many a broken mess of people have never had community support before) and suddenly the faith virus is planted firmly in their head. Once complete, continue to indoctrinate the rest of their lives.

C. Now provide them with apologetics so the new convert feels like their decision was rational.

[Guest end3]

I think that presuppositionalism can act as a confirmation to burgeoning faith.

[bornagainathiest]

I think that presuppositionalism can act as a confirmation to burgeoning faith.

 

So presupposition (which is an act of faith) can act as a confirmation to burgeoning faith?

 

Faith confirming faith?

 

Circular argument, much?

[L.B.]

@dangitbobby83:

 

You forgot one.

 

Give marginally-educated adults a bogeyman to be afraid of (other religions, homosexuals, etc) and teach them that they are a special army of god, they possess the "truth" and they are standing firm against the onslaught of sin in the world.

 

It's much more common than lifelong indoctrination - in fact, most of the dunces I've met who are "righteously angry" about one issue or another are generally willing to swallow whatever "theology" is assumed in their local congregation.

 

Seriously, I've met people whom I KNOW did not have an opinion on one thing or another who all of a sudden were absolutely convinced that such-and-such was "god's will" because they heard it ONCE from a preacher. Once.

[Thought2Much]

@dangitbobby83:

 

You forgot one.

 

Give marginally-educated adults a bogeyman to be afraid of (other religions, homosexuals, etc) and teach them that they are a special army of god, they possess the "truth" and they are standing firm against the onslaught of sin in the world.

 

It's much more common than lifelong indoctrination - in fact, most of the dunces I've met who are "righteously angry" about one issue or another are generally willing to swallow whatever "theology" is assumed in their local congregation.

 

Seriously, I've met people whom I KNOW did not have an opinion on one thing or another who all of a sudden were absolutely convinced that such-and-such was "god's will" because they heard it ONCE from a preacher. Once.

This.

 

My father in-law, who used to be a pastor, would always be angry about the same things his favorite televangelists were angry about. Whenever he'd start going on about something new, I'd wonder which televangelist he heard talking about it the previous week.

[sdelsolray]

These folks base their world view on scripture, authority and revelation.  That toxic combination produces all sorts of zany emotions, behaviors, statements, etc.

[L.B.]

The pastor I used to work for when I was on staff at a church used to quote verbatim from a famous fundy Baptist preacher's books with no citation or credit given.

 

We actually used to have to listen to him yell about the Commies in Hollywood, like we were living in 1945 or something.

 

When you tell someone that a phenomenon you can't explain might be understandable if they do their research, and they come back with "if we don't understand, it's because biblegod", then it's time to back away slowly until you're out of arm's reach, then run like hell.

[♦ ficino ♦]

 

I think that presuppositionalism can act as a confirmation to burgeoning faith.

 

So presupposition (which is an act of faith) can act as a confirmation to burgeoning faith?

 

Faith confirming faith?

 

Circular argument, much?

 

When I was a Calvinist I was told that the Transcendental Argument for God (presuppositionalism) is indeed circular. The Calvinists said that the unbeliever's reasoning is circular, too (the Calvinists basically didn't have enough faith to be atheists). "You have to pick which circle to stand in - God's or man's."

[sdelsolray]

 

 

I think that presuppositionalism can act as a confirmation to burgeoning faith.

 

So presupposition (which is an act of faith) can act as a confirmation to burgeoning faith?

 

Faith confirming faith?

 

Circular argument, much?

 

When I was a Calvinist I was told that the Transcendental Argument for God (presuppositionalism) is indeed circular. The Calvinists said that the unbeliever's reasoning is circular, too (the Calvinists basically didn't have enough faith to be atheists). "You have to pick which circle to stand in - God's or man's."

 

 

 

Cute, at least for the Calvinists.  Other than a misidentification (both choices are human choices), a false equivalence (an unbeliever's reasoning is not circular) and a false dichotomy (there are other choices besides the two presented), all is right with the world.

 

Religious presuppositionalism is just cheating.  Plain and simple.

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

I think that presuppositionalism can act as a confirmation to burgeoning faith.

 

So presupposition (which is an act of faith) can act as a confirmation to burgeoning faith?

 

Faith confirming faith?

 

Circular argument, much?

 

When I was a Calvinist I was told that the Transcendental Argument for God (presuppositionalism) is indeed circular. The Calvinists said that the unbeliever's reasoning is circular, too (the Calvinists basically didn't have enough faith to be atheists). "You have to pick which circle to stand in - God's or man's."

 

 

Ficino,

 

What criteria did said Calvinists say we should use to pick which circle to stand in?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[♦ ficino ♦]

Of course, the Calvinists believe that no one can come to saving faith except by God's regenerating that person. They allow that some can be theists and unsaved.

 

But that's really not relevant to your question - another "of course."  To the best of what I remember, they argued that one can make robust explanations of things only on the presupposition that there is a God who exists necessarily, creates a law-like universe, and grounds the laws of thought in the rationality of His own nature. The Calvinists who push TAG (and not all Calvinists do) say that without the "God who is there" presuppositions, you cannot "account for" knowledge, science (cuz you couldn't depend on events' occurring repeatedly if there was a chance-driven universe), language and logic, morality, etc. They think the unbeliever's "world view" is self-refuting because the unbeliever appeals to constants that he's not authorized to appeal to on a naturalistic/materialistic world view.

 

So I think they support TAG by arguments from consequences. Consequences of naturalism like the claim that the unbeliever can't truly have knowledge, and so on, they think.