Catholic
apologist Phil Porvaznik, in his
review of Patrick Madrid and Kenneth Hensley’s The Godless Delusion (2010), has a very cogent critique of
presuppositionalist apologetics:
In chapter two ("A Solution to the
Delusion"), we find a version of "presuppositional" apologetics
used, what you normally see in the hardcore anti-Catholic Reformed writers
(e.g. Greg Bahnsen):
"This book is an exercise in what is called the
presuppositional approach to Christian apologetics...When Christian apologists
argue 'presuppositionally,' we seek to compare and contrast the theistic and
naturalist worldviews, in order to show our atheist friend that while our
worldview makes sense of human experience, his does not." (p. 38-39).
Unfortunately,
this is basically the only argument in the book, and presuppositionalism itself
has been very well critiqued (by even fellow Christian apologists) as being
circular and invalid (the logical fallacy of petitio principii,
"assuming the initial point" or "begging the question").
Presuppositional apologists themselves admit their brand of
"apologetics" is indeed "circular" (but still valid?, see
Van Til quotes below). Although I don't want to misrepresent the book. The
authors don't quote or seem to rely on Cornelius van Til (the
"father" of presuppositionalism) or Greg Bahnsen (the best modern
defender of presuppositionalism) or Reformed writers at all. The
Godless Delusion is mainly a "comparison of worldviews" (naturalism
vs. Christian theism) with a reductio ad absurdum (or
"reduction to the absurd") tossed in against the atheist. That is
just part of the presuppositional case they are using in their arguments
against atheism, and those parts need not be circular.
While
they do call their main argument "presuppositional" apologetics, they
don't go as far as Van Til or the following statements from The
Portable Presuppositionalist. For example, their moral argument basically
comes from C.S. Lewis, not van Til. They also do a good job showing how a
purely "evolutionary" or "naturalistic" origin of humanity
(or a "naturalistic worldview") makes it difficult to explain free
will, love, the mind/soul, consciousness, truth, knowledge, ethics, etc while a
"theistic Christian worldview" makes better sense of these phenomena.
It doesn't "prove" Christian theism in my opinion, but does make
atheism implausible (or much less plausible).
What
exactly is presuppositionalism, according to the presuppositionalists
themselves? Here are some choice quotes from The Portable
Presuppositionalist, which summarizes leading presuppositional apologists
as Cornelius van Til, Greg Bahnsen, John Frame, and others:
"...Van Til said that the Christian God and the
truth of Scripture is the only possible explanation for
anything at all...in order to argue against Christianity, you have to first
assume that it is true....the Christian must...assume Christianity is true
before and while arguing that it is true...." (The Portable
Presuppositionalist, page 32, 33); "If Jesus Christ is really Lord
over all, Van Til argued, then the human mind (or consciousness) is not the
ultimate and permanent starting point in reasoning; God is....Notice the sheer
weight of Van Til's thought at this point. If his philosophy...is correct, then
the entire method of Thomas Aquinas, the evidentialism of Warfield, and the
majority of their modern day followers...are defective. They are fundamentally
flawed." (TPP, page 37-38); "....the transcendental argument
is in fact, the most powerful argument ever known -- for it reveals the
necessary basis for any and all arguments, human predication, and intelligible
human experience....Van Til's argument is not irrational or
contrary to logic -- it is the very foundation for rationality, logic, and in
fact, everything else that can be interpreted and experienced by the human
being." (TPP, page 64, 65); "God as the Creator is Himself
and His Word the ultimate starting point." (TPP, page 68);
"...the presuppositionalist insists that God first be called the
'universal presupposition necessary for life and for the ordering of
knowledge,' and that God be called 'the foundation upon which
all rationality is established,' and the 'necessary precondition for any and
all science.' Why? Because logic is not the self-existent Creator of
all things, God is!" (TPP, page 77, emphasis in original);
"The traditionalist wants to assert that the laws of logic are the
superior starting point for knowledge, science, and apologetic discourse...We
cannot have knowledge of God without logic. However, we can have God
without the laws of logic, or at least our formal understanding of those
laws....God is inherently more ultimate than logic." (TPP, page 77,
emphasis in original); "The presuppositionalist maintains that we should
presuppose the authority and divinity of Christ and His Word just like Paul
does in Colossians 2. God is self-existent and self-validating because of who He
is (his nature). God's Word is self-attesting and self-verifying because
of what It is (the nature of God's Word); there is no higher
standard by which to make truth claims. That is what is meant by a
presuppositionalist, 'circular argument.' The beginning and end of the
presuppositionalist argument is the same. It starts where it ends." (TPP,
page 85-86); "To simply believe in God's Word because it is God's
Word is to reason presuppositionally....The presupposition that the
Bible is the Word of God is not arbitrary; it is A.) morally demanded by God,
and B.) the only assumption that is philosophically sufficient to provide a
worldview that can explain logic, ethics, science, human predication and the
possibility of any and all knowledge." (TPP, page 94, 95)
Let's
summarize the supposed "case for God" based on the
"presuppositional" method outlined above:
o God is assumed or
presupposed to exist; the Christian God and the truth of Scripture is the
"only possible explanation for anything at all";
o To argue FOR or AGAINST "Christianity"
you must assume it is true;
o We don't start with
the self, the mind, logic or reason; we start with God as the
"ultimate and permanent starting point";
o All evidential and
classical argumentation, the entire method of Thomas Aquinas, the majority of
modern proponents and their reasoning is defective, it is fundamentally flawed;
o The
"transcendental argument for God" (TAG) is the most powerful argument
ever known; it is the basis for any and all arguments and intelligible human
experience;
o We can't begin with
logic since logic is not the Creator of all things, God is; in fact, we can
have God without any laws of logic;
o We should presuppose
the authority and divinity of Christ and His Word; God and God's Word (the
Bible) is self-validating, self-attesting, self-verifying;
o The presuppositional
argument is indeed a "circular argument" since the beginning and end
of the argument is the same;
o Believe in God's
Word because it is God's Word is to "reason
presuppositionally";
o this is not arbitrary
since this is "morally demanded by God" (where? in the Bible, of
course);
o the presuppositional
approach is philosophically sufficient to provide a worldview that explains
logic, ethics, science, human predication, and all knowledge;
I
maintain there cannot be such a "Catholic presuppositionalist" given
the statements above. It is inherently a Reformed and anti-Catholic method (Van Til spoke often
of the "Romanists" and Arminians) of "Christian
apologetics." It is subjective; it is circular; it is based on mere
assertions; it is not an argument; it denigrates and confuses logic and reason
with God; it rejects Thomas Aquinas; and it rejects the First Vatican Council
which says that "God, the source and end of all things, can be known
with certainty from the consideration of created things, by the natural power
of human reason." The traditional Catholic approach is to start with
logic, common sense, and reason, and end with God. These are linear arguments
(not circular). God has indeed given us our reason since God is the God of
truth and reason (Isaiah 1:18; 65:16), but we don't start with "God"
as that would be circular and invalidate any argument for God.
