I Said It, I Believe It, That Settles It! (Presuppositional Apologetics)

[VacuumFlux]

 

 

You raise a couple of very good points there.

1. Yes, they do the circular argument dance with such ease without ever realizing what they're doing. It's like you said - the bible says it so it must be true therefore you are such and such because the bible says it - without ever investigating

 

 

Amazingly, some of the more sophisticated ones do realize the circularity of their argument.  When I was in a Calvinist seminary, we were much taken with Cornelius Van Til as a proponent of TAG.  I remember one of my fellow students quoting his own pastor as saying, "it depends on which circle you want to stand in."  They maintained that the circular system of Christianity (esp. Calvinism) brought a good life, to say nothing of salvation, while the "world's" circular system brought despair (and of course, hellfire).  It was in fact a technique of that sort of apologetic to get the unbeliever to a point of despair about finding any ground of knowledge, and then push him/her to a leap of faith to the Bible as that ground.  the circularity was felt as OK because the witness of the Holy Spirit was supposedly what drew each one of the elect into God's circle, out of the devil's/world's/man's circle.

 

It's circles all the way down.

 

 

Hah! When I discovered that Christianity was all circular, I just dropped Christianity, because I had no way to know if that circle was worth getting into. I decided that what I could feel and sense with my own body had a slightly higher probability of being the Real Truth than what other people kept telling me the Bible means. I did have a lot of periods of panic where I couldn't even decide if my own senses were trustworthy enough to have any grounding in reality. But eventually I decided that that's all I've got, so I may as well start there. I eventually started to understand about science and logic and how I can expand my knowledge of reality fairly reliably even though sensory perception is limited and our brains do some weird things sometimes. (I grew up being told that since "the heart is deceitful above all things", then I can't trust anything from my own senses or mind. I... think I took that more seriously than the people around me did, or we'd have all been non-functional.)

[HymenaeusAlexander]

Geez, will it ever end? So, some circular arguments are more applicable or relevant than others? Silly me - and here I thought ANY argument that is circular ought to be tossed into the trash.

 

Actually, some circular arguments are more applicable or relevant than others.   Every epistemology will eventually fall victim to the Münchhausen trilemma. At some point you just have to accept something as a brute fact. What the Presuppositionalist does is attempt to get you to acknowledge this gap in unproven assumptions and then he argues that this gives him warrant to fly a giant C-5 cargo plane full of his unsupported propositions through it.

 

 

Amazingly, some of the more sophisticated ones do realize the circularity of their argument.  When I was in a Calvinist seminary, we were much taken with Cornelius Van Til as a proponent of TAG.  I remember one of my fellow students quoting his own pastor as saying, "it depends on which circle you want to stand in."  They maintained that the circular system of Christianity (esp. Calvinism) brought a good life, to say nothing of salvation, while the "world's" circular system brought despair (and of course, hellfire).  It was in fact a technique of that sort of apologetic to get the unbeliever to a point of despair about finding any ground of knowledge, and then push him/her to a leap of faith to the Bible as that ground.  the circularity was felt as OK because the witness of the Holy Spirit was supposedly what drew each one of the elect into God's circle, out of the devil's/world's/man's circle.

 

It's circles all the way down.

 

You've hit right on it. It's nothing more than an appeal to consequences. "No induction; no logic; no morality. Not a single luxury. Like Carroll's Humpty Dumpty, it's senseless as can be." So they say, anyway.

 

I was a full-blown presupper once. It was a self-induced reductio ad absurdum argument brought on by the Bible itself that got me out of the circle.

[duderonomy]

I attempted to show how both sides differ - yes we start out with presup. but we put them through some kind of testing or evaluation via empirical processes whereas the cultists do not - they simply take those views all the way to a conclusion without ever evaluating them - that's been my experience with them in numerous debates. What's been YOUR experience with them for you to make such a sweeping generalization as you have?

 

I and others also tried to correct your faulty view regarding an atheist's presup that there is no god. As already said here and in other topics, we simply have no belief one way or another - the same as we have regarding blue fairies, unicorns, et.al.

 

You've not only taken what I said out of context (yes, the charge still stands), but you now change, once more, what you initially said in your first posting. You initially said Don't atheists also begin their apologetics with presuppositions? They pre-suppose that there is no God at all. How would they know that?

 

The 'change' occurs when you now write:

It doesn't matter what conclusion you posit if your apologetics are based on an incorrect presupposition, and I believe they are in this case, just as I said clearly.

 

The subtle change should be obvious, at least for those of us who take the time to study an opponent's words. You obviously are not doing this so I'll explain. 

 

1. if our apologetics are based on INCORRECT presups? That was never stated in your initial faulty views. You now suggest the atheist's presups are incorrect, hence, the implication is that the conclusion is also incorrect. This leads to

2. By your moniker you declare you are an agnostic - your statement then suggests you are defending the agnostic position. If you are not then why the shift in the initial comment? If you are then I'll leave it to someone else to debate the validity of agnosticm. I personally feel agnostics are practicing a backhand form of Pascal's wager, ie: playing it safe.

 

Now, unless you're willing to concede your shifting your argument, I feel any more dialogue would be useless. I'll just end by saying I've seen your tactics used by the xtian cultists over and over to evade certain challenges issued by me and other atheists. Perhaps you might be waving more towards theism but lack the intellectual honesty to admit this? This is not an ad hominem, merely an observation based on years of experience in various debates from BOTH sides of the fence.

 

raoul,

 

I'm not defending the agnostic position or any other position here. I'm pointing out that everyone, including you, uses presuppositional apologetics, when defending their position.  It's not "another brand new trick they have to resort to". If you want to claim that it is, then you should be prepared for arguments to the contrary.

 

I'm trying to be nice here, and I don't appreciate your (what I see as) snide put downs and subtle ad hominems. My argument hasn't shifted, but if you want to claim it has so you can avoid further dialogue, go ahead.

 

You are throwing red herrings at me with both hands in this quoted post.  Why you would do that, I don't know. 

[raoul]

I'm pointing out that everyone, including you, uses presuppositional apologetics, when defending their position.  It's not "another brand new trick they have to resort to". If you want to claim that it is, then you should be prepared for arguments to the contrary.

 

Yes, I AM prepared for arguments against what was stated - by THEM and not someone pretending to be an agnostic or confused by what is posited. For the LAST freaking time - I NEVER implied atheists don't use presuppostionalism. What I DID write, and this will be the last time I bore everyone to tears with it is that 'while both camps used the concept, ONE camp takes it all the way down to making conclusions WITHOUT any evidence or proof!

 

You also claim, in your defense of the cult that it's not another brand new trick. And as I believe I said somewhere, yes it is, at least in their using it more and more now - more than ever before because they have NOTHING else to use. I debate them almost on a weekly basis and I've seen them actually defend using presuppositional arguments WITHOUT any backing with other things (logic, evidence, etc.). In fact, one of them at the gall to write that 'since atheists have rejected all of the evidence shown to them', he is no longer going to provide any - he's just going to use presuppositional views and nothing else! I politely reminded him that for the past 2000 years they have provided NOTHING remotely resembling evidence.

 

And you can argue until you're blue in the face - your own words in preceding comments show a shift. No ad hominem, no red herring or blue trout or great white shark. Just my bullshit meter working - your xitian collegues call it 'spiritual discernment'....

[duderonomy]

I'm pointing out that everyone, including you, uses presuppositional apologetics, when defending their position.  It's not "another brand new trick they have to resort to". If you want to claim that it is, then you should be prepared for arguments to the contrary.

 

Yes, I AM prepared for arguments against what was stated - by THEM and not someone pretending to be an agnostic or confused by what is posited. For the LAST freaking time - I NEVER implied atheists don't use presuppostionalism. What I DID write, and this will be the last time I bore everyone to tears with it is that 'while both camps used the concept, ONE camp takes it all the way down to making conclusions WITHOUT any evidence or proof!

 

You also claim, in your defense of the cult that it's not another brand new trick. And as I believe I said somewhere, yes it is, at least in their using it more and more now - more than ever before because they have NOTHING else to use. I debate them almost on a weekly basis and I've seen them actually defend using presuppositional arguments WITHOUT any backing with other things (logic, evidence, etc.). In fact, one of them at the gall to write that 'since atheists have rejected all of the evidence shown to them', he is no longer going to provide any - he's just going to use presuppositional views and nothing else! I politely reminded him that for the past 2000 years they have provided NOTHING remotely resembling evidence.

 

And you can argue until you're blue in the face - your own words in preceding comments show a shift. No ad hominem, no red herring or blue trout or great white shark. Just my bullshit meter working - your xitian collegues call it 'spiritual discernment'....

 

My defense of the cult? Xtian collegues? Pretending to be agnostic? You are prepared for arguments but only from "THEM"? More frequent use equals brand new tactic?   Have you ever pointed that B.S. meter at yourself? We have to remember to attack the argument, and not the person, right?

 

I agree with your position in the example you gave, and in fact I agree with a lot of what you say on this site.

 

I don't really want to go on about this, and I'm sure you don't either, but you can't expect to put this in the Lion's Den and not have someone bring up questions or challenges if they don't agree or have issues concerning what you say.