Presu-poop-sitionalism

[TheGreatInfidel]

I just want to sum up what i've learned about presu-poop-sitionalism through my conversations with presu-poop-sitionalists and how they manipulate holes in epistemology so that they can introduce their god of the gaps. At the end I’ll give my suggestions on how to approach presupoopsitionalists claims.

Problems in Epistemology

The underlying problem is this, how do you know that next time you tap the desk it will make a knocking sound? You don't know. You may have tapped it a million times before, and all those times it may have made the knocking sound, but to say it will do it again is to beg the question. You really don't know it will make the knocking sound. There is no deductive argument for the conclusion that it will sound again. At most, you have is inductive reasoning, but inductive reasoning is never certain. By this, you can already see the implications. How do you know that the laws of the universe, or logic etc., are going to be the same tomorrow? There is no deductive argument for the conclusion that they will be the same. And even if there is, you would be assuming what you've been asked, i.e., that logic is constant, since you would have to use logic to determine it.. All you have is inductive reasoning, but inductive reasoning is never necessary. Now consider this, deductive logic is based on inductive logic. After having observed that all observed men have been mortal, "mortal" became part of our concept of man and hence we've formed a universal: "All men are mortal"

The Presupoopsitionalist Tactic

Really, it all comes down to asking how you know that the tools by which you acquire knowledge are certain, namely inductive, and deductive reason (or as presupoopsitionalists put it, "How do you account for knowledge?"). But Consider, the question "How do you know that the tools by which you acquire knowledge are certain? What is at issue is the tools you acquire knowledge, but there is no way you can answer that question without using your tools of knowledge in the process. So you'll be assuming what you've been asked. IMO it is a dumb question, it is a categorical mistake. It's akin to asking that you apply a particular action to itself.

There are problems in epistemology; I don't think any epistemologists denies it; theistic or atheistic. So it won't do any good to try to refute them; unless you want to take on quite a project. [To make matters worse, philosophers have given an account of knowledge (true justified belief) that doesn't seem to work in some situations (see http://www.ditext.com/gettier/gettier.html)]

Approach to Presupoopsitionalists

What I recommend is that atheist focus on the claim that Christian theism supposedly accounts for knowledge i.e, that christianity somehow provides foundations for knowledge or *Guarantees* that the laws of logic will remain the same or etc.. What I've notice is that presupoopsitianalists always shifts the burden of proof. Hence Theophilus comment in our forum:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The "proof," is in the impossibility of the contrary, i.e., the inability of any other system to give a meaningful account for the nature of life and human experience, i.e., the substance of this whole debate.
-----------------------------------------------------------
They point out the shortcomings of epistemology, naturalism, etc. But when asked to prove how is it that Christianity provides for it, they ask you to prove the contrary (or they give you a belief statement such as "creation reflects its creator.....blah, blah, blah," Which, as you can see, assumes the existence of god and other stuff thay they haven’t proven.)

Doesn’t it sound like the god of the gaps? It amounts to “ You can’t account for why we have thunder. I can, Zeus did it. Therefore, the ancient greek worldview is better than non-ancient greek worldviews” It’s the same thing all over again, except now they are doing it with the foundations of knowledge.

Vague language

When debating a presupoopsitionalist, I would suggest watching for vague language such as "meaningful". "Meaningful" is an evaluative term. Who is it supposed to be meaningful to? To a Christian? So offhand, the presupooptionalists can deny anything you say, since it isn't meaningful to them, but they won't tell you that. They'll just say it isn't meaningful. Their criteria for meaningfulness seems to be that it is meaningful to a Christian worldview. So of course that non-Christian explanation such as naturalism, is not going to be possible under the Christian criteria. Apriorism at its finest!

Their position seems to be as follows:

1) X is meaningful if and only if X is meaningful to the christian worldview.
2)Non-christian explanations aren't meaningful to the christian world view (dugh!).
3) Therefore, non-christian explanations aren't meaningful.

So the question is - why are Christian explanations supposedly meaningful? As Theophilus points out above, their reason is because others can’t account for foundations of knowledge. Their argument seems to be as follows:

1) Either the Christian worldview provides foundations for knowledge or non-Christian worldviews provide foundations for knowledge .
2) Non-Christian worldviews don’t provide foundations for knowledge.
3) Therefore, the Christian worldview provides foundations for knowledge.

This is a valid argument, but we need to see if it’s sound. Like I said, to take on the foundations for knowledge would be quite a project. There are philosophers still debating it. So the focus should be on premise (1). Is it a valid dichotomy? Isn’t it possible that neither gives foundations for knowledge?

So again, the question is - what are the reasons for Christians believing that a Christian worldview provides a foundation for knowledge? They can’t respond with, “Because the "proof," is in the impossibility of the contrary ” because then they will be assuming the dichotomy in question. They need to explain how does the Christian worldview provide for the foundations of knowledge, without appealing to the fact that non-christian worldviews haven’t! They are assuming a dichotomy.

See also the presuppositionalisst essay http://home.earthlink.net/~gbl111/knowledge.htm and Michael Martin’s essays on Presuppositionalism and TANG.

Edit: to add italics and other meaningfull stuff. Excuse the pun.

[Dr Rick]

:notworthy

[sir drinks-a-lot]

Nice post. Hopefully, some presupoopsitionalists will join the thread.

I feel the same way about presupoopsitionalist claims - they are nothing but God-of-the-Gaps arguments. Furthermore, presupoopsitionalists like to claim that their worldview "justifies" logic - but insisting that logic needs to be justified assumes that logic is worthwhile in the first place!

[Hopeful Monsters]

Just to add my congrats TheGreatInfidel on a solid piece of work that doesn't turn its back on the importance of humour :notworthy

I think you have identified yet another area where a theist is forced to cry gawddidit and chase their Biblical Tale 'round in circles.

Now - even though I studied Decartes, Lock, Berkeley, Hume, Hobbs, Leibniz, Russell, Nagel, Popper, Warnock et al at college, I'm going to have to go away and think before I have the confidence to make more of a substantial contribution than this!

Good stuff TGI (see - even managed to name yourself after a chain of bars).

[Spenser]

The part that tics me off about that presuppositional approach is that by not accepting our world view as 'meaningful' this somehow exempts the bible from critique from anyone except those who find the bible to be inerrant.

Sounds like spoiled child reasoning to me...

[luvluv]

I’m not a presuppositionalist, but I did sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

Seriously, I recently finished a trilogy of books by the presuppositionalist Francis Schaeffer. It seems to me that you have the presuppostionalist position wrong if you think that the essence of their approach is an appeal to solving the epistemological problems we all face. At least, not all presuppositionalists make this kind of claim. Schaeffer seemed more to emphasize the fact that theism affirms what we already believe to be true about human nature, and atheism denies it.

Presuppositionalism is, or would be, fallacious as a deductive argument, as it is a pretty blatant appeal to consequences. It says, essentially, that there is no proof either for my worldview or for your worldview.

However, if your worldview (let’s say materialism) is correct, then you live in a world without free choice, moral responsibility, or purpose. Nothing, not your life, the life of your children, the progress of the human species, or even the existence of the universe has any intrinsic value. Value and worth do not actually exist, they are unscientific subjective mental constructs like beauty, truth, and God. You also live in a world where “you” don’t really exist. The “you” you supposedly experience is merely an illusion created by the process of natural selection because the concept of self provides a survival advantage. All is vanity.

However, if your worldview is theistic, you get to affirm freedom, choice, moral responsibility, purpose, love, personhood, value, truth, and beauty. You really are you, the value you are tempted to put on your life and other human lives really belongs there, and to deny that value would actually be objectively wrong. You’re not an accident, you were created with a purpose, and there is the possibility of that purpose being fulfilled with your active participation.

Now, there’s nothing that we know, or can know, which forces you to acknowledge on view or the other as being “real”, so you can pick whichever worldview suits your fancy. Now which one are you gonna pick?

The major force of presuppostionalism, in my view, is that it’s ridiculous and depressing to pick the atheistic materialism position if you don’t HAVE to. You can’t choose either position because it’s TRUE, because you don’t have any sufficient foundation for claiming to know that one or the other is true. So if either could be true, and it’s impossible to know for sure which, why in the world would you want to pick materialistic atheism, being as that it denies almost everything we value in human experience?

I don’t think much of Schaeffer’s overall approach, but I think he was dead right about one thing: it is impossible to be a consistent materialistic atheist. As Peter Kreeft once said, it might be productive to regard the human being in the lab as just a machine, but it certainly won’t be productive to come home from the lab and treat your wife and children the same way. No determinist really behaves as if he and his companions are in no control over their behavior. Though they would generally deny that things which don't exist outside the mind are real, all materialists assign value to human beings and human activities. Though they know that such value exists only in their minds, they still behave as if these valuation were real and binding.

So Schaeffer is essentially saying “Hey, instead of being an inconsistent atheist why not be a consistent theist?” That argument has it’s appeal, but contrary to what your saying I don’t think it intends to prove anything or to provide any sure foundation of knowledge. It’s just saying my foundation is as unsure as your foundation, but your foundation sucks.

It’s less an apologetic proof than an evangelistic technique. It’s a good way to approach nonbelievers and hit them where they live. It drags them out of a secure place and forces them to face pretty tough questions about their knowledge and the implications of their worldview. It’s effective, but it doesn’t prove or claim to prove anything. At least from what little I’ve read.

(I would agree with you that meaning is a subjective word, however it is for that very reason that it doesn’t fit into an atheistic materialist worldview. It’s arbitrary, it can’t be systemized or categorized objectively, it exists only in human minds, it has no referent, and no scientific support. Therefore, to the committed materialist, it doesn’t actually exist.)

[Spenser]

Luvluv,

I think the problem with this approach is if the atheist decides his world view does suck (which it doesn't) then we are left with a limitless amount of fiction to choose from to fulfill a theistic view. If we simply pick a theistic view because it sounds more pleasant to us than another theistic view how could it possibly be level with the atheistic materialistic stance. There are not that many ways to view materialism yet there are WAY TOO MANY ways to view various theistic positions.

I'm perfectly happy with my subjective meaning and my subjective morality. If anything actually resembling evidence for another world view comes to pass I am more than willing to ponder it. Simply asserting it doesn't fly...

[mosaic]

Luvluv, you listed things I really do not belive are problems. Say we dont have "freewill" and we're simply anojhter manifestation of a thing just trying to exist. What does that mean to me has the manifestation? How is this supposed to depress me? Whether or not, I exist as some derivative of a purposeles force, does not change my feelings or devalues them in the least. Either way, I exist, and I have to deal with it. Freedom as value to human beings. Humans dont have to be valued ethereally for me to come to the conclusion that freedom is a human value. I will never argue that the universe should be "free" or some nonsense like that so why should I argue that the universe needs to be concerned about me? Or that "freedom" is real? Is this even a coherent concern?

[luvluv]

Have any of you folks read this paper:

http://home.earthlink.net/~gbl111/knowledge.htm

It was posted here a while back.

[Family Man]

However, if your worldview (let’s say materialism) is correct, then you live in a world without free choice, moral responsibility, or purpose. Nothing, not your life, the life of your children, the progress of the human species, or even the existence of the universe has any intrinsic value. Value and worth do not actually exist, they are unscientific subjective mental constructs like beauty, truth, and God. You also live in a world where “you” don’t really exist. The “you” you supposedly experience is merely an illusion created by the process of natural selection because the concept of self provides a survival advantage. All is vanity.


Gosh, I guess I'll have to go out and kill myself. Oh...wait....that is just a ridiculous miscariaturization of my true position. Nevermind.


However, if your worldview is theistic, you get to affirm freedom, choice, moral responsibility, purpose, love, personhood, value, truth, and beauty. You really are you, the value you are tempted to put on your life and other human lives really belongs there, and to deny that value would actually be objectively wrong. You’re not an accident, you were created with a purpose, and there is the possibility of that purpose being fulfilled with your active participation.


Isn't it nice to define your worldview in such rosy terms?

[Steven Carr]

Originally posted by luvluv

However, if your worldview is theistic, you get to affirm freedom, choice, moral responsibility, purpose, love, personhood, value, truth, and beauty.

And you get to tell people you don't like that they are utterly depraved, worthy of eternal condemnation just for being human , and only spared from this fate by the magnanimity of God (if God has them on his 'elect' list)

[TheGreatInfidel]

Originally posted by luvluv
I’m not a presuppositionalist, but I did sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

Seriously, I recently finished a trilogy of books by the presuppositionalist Francis Schaeffer. It seems to me that you have the presuppostionalist position wrong if you think that the essence of their approach is an appeal to solving the epistemological problems we all face. At least, not all presuppositionalists make this kind of claim. Schaeffer seemed more to emphasize the fact that theism affirms what we already believe to be true about human nature, and atheism denies it.

Yeap, and in which way does theism affirm it? Does it prove it? Or it merely tells you what you want to hear?

Presuppositionalism is, or would be, fallacious as a deductive argument, as it is a pretty blatant appeal to consequences. It says, essentially, that there is no proof either for my worldview or for your worldview.

Oh, so how does theism affirm if it doesn’t prove it? Does it affirm it in the sense that it tells you what you want to hear? Sort of like when parents tell their children, “there there, honey. Sure, when you grow up you’ll be an astronaut.”

However, if your worldview (let’s say materialism) is correct, then you live in a world without free choice, moral responsibility, or purpose. Nothing, not your life, the life of your children, the progress of the human species, or even the existence of the universe has any intrinsic value.

So what if it doesn’t have intrinsic value? Who cares? That I know of, materialist atheist don’t give a rat’s ass whether stuff has intrinsic value. Apparently it bothers theists more than it bothers materialist atheist. Can you prove stuff has value other than the value the “valuer” gives it?

Value and worth do not actually exist, they are unscientific subjective mental constructs like beauty, truth, and God. You also live in a world where “you” don’t really exist. The “you” you supposedly experience is merely an illusion created by the process of natural selection because the concept of self provides a survival advantage. All is vanity.

Look I’m not going to speak for materialism, I’m not a materialist. It just seems you are trying to pass me off as a materialist so that you can have something to throw at me.

However, if your worldview is theistic, you get to affirm freedom, choice, moral responsibility, purpose, love, personhood, value, truth, and beauty. You really are you, the value you are tempted to put on your life and other human lives really belongs there, and to deny that value would actually be objectively wrong. You’re not an accident, you were created with a purpose, and there is the possibility of that purpose being fulfilled with your active participation.

So what? How is this relevant? How does this prove the existence of any god? I’m an atheist and I have purpose in my life. My purpose in life is to get a PhD in philosophy! And I place value on stuff, whether that value is intrinsic to the stuff I place it to, matters little to me.

Now, there’s nothing that we know, or can know, which forces you to acknowledge on view or the other as being “real”, so you can pick whichever worldview suits your fancy. Now which one are you gonna pick?

Not yours and Not materialism. By the way since when is it “Either you’re a christian theist or you are a materialist atheist”? FALSE DICHOTOMY!

The major force of presuppostionalism, in my view, is that it’s ridiculous and depressing to pick the atheistic materialism position if you don’t HAVE to. You can’t choose either position because it’s TRUE, because you don’t have any sufficient foundation for claiming to know that one or the other is true. So if either could be true, and it’s impossible to know for sure which, why in the world would you want to pick materialistic atheism, being as that it denies almost everything we value in human experience?

Oh ok. Presumption A comforts me more than presumption B. I’m gonna invent a super duper worldview and choose it over naturalism and christianity. After all, by the looks of it, it’s all right to choose a worldviews based on the degree it comforts you.

I don’t think much of Schaeffer’s overall approach, but I think he was dead right about one thing: it is impossible to be a consistent materialistic atheist.

Again, since when are all atheists materialists? Again, it just seems you are trying to characterize all atheists as materialist so that you’ll have something to throw at us.

As Peter Kreeft once said, it might be productive to regard the human being in the lab as just a machine, but it certainly won’t be productive to come home from the lab and treat your wife and children the same way. No determinist really behaves as if he and his companions are in no control over their behavior. Though they would generally deny that things which don't exist outside the mind are real, all materialists assign value to human beings and human activities. Though they know that such value exists only in their minds, they still behave as if these valuation were real and binding.

Any materialists around? Hello?

So Schaeffer is essentially saying “Hey, instead of being an inconsistent atheist why not be a consistent theist?” That argument has it’s appeal, but contrary to what your saying I don’t think it intends to prove anything or to provide any sure foundation of knowledge. It’s just saying my foundation is as unsure as your foundation, but your foundation sucks.

How can my foundation suck. At this point I don’t know what is my foundation. I have studied the literature to the point where I can say “this is my foundation”? Oh, I forgot you are directing your comment towards a materialist.

It’s less an apologetic proof than an evangelistic technique. It’s a good way to approach nonbelievers and hit them where they live. It drags them out of a secure place and forces them to face pretty tough questions about their knowledge and the implications of their worldview. It’s effective, but it doesn’t prove or claim to prove anything. At least from what little I’ve read.

No shit! That’s what I tried to demonstrate. It points out flaws, but it makes not attempt to even prove that the god of christianity exists in any place other than your mind. And although you guys claim that it’s not an argument the underlying assumption is a false dichotomy: “Since you have flaw X in your view, therefore my worldview is right” You won’t state it but you’ll assume it; it is evident in your words and all presu-poop-sitionalist’s poop.

LOOK, PAY ATTETION! ATHEISTS KNOW THAT NOT EVERYTHING IS KNOWN. SO WHAT'S THE POINT IN POINTING THIS OUT TO US? WHAT DO YOU HOPE TO ACCOMPLISH? WE KNOW THAT ALREADY. Spread the word to your presu-poop-sitionalist buddies!

(I would agree with you that meaning is a subjective word, however it is for that very reason that it doesn’t fit into an atheistic materialist worldview. It’s arbitrary, it can’t be systemized or categorized objectively, it exists only in human minds, it has no referent, and no scientific support. Therefore, to the committed materialist, it doesn’t actually exist.) [/B]

Look for a materialist so that you’ll have someone to direct your message to. You are barking up the wrong tree. By the way, does the Christian god exists in any place other than your mind?

[Spenser]

TGI,

Just for note, I do not believe luvluv is a presuppositionalist (I could be wrong), I think he is just trying to explain his view of presuppositionalists (which apparently differs some from theophilus).

[Jobar]

TGI, as you would expect I have seen a whole passle of presupp arguments, and I'll have to say that yours is the shortest, clearest, and most effective attack I've seen. It is in line with weak atheism; we do not *deny* that Christian presuppositionalists may be correct; but we see no evidence presented for that! Downright Socratic, I'd say.

Oh, theo-PHILLLLL-us! :D

[Thomas Metcalf]

TheGreatInfidel :

I got your email. There are really two ways something can be "atheist enemy #1." The first is if it appears prominently in debates -- a laypersons' enemy. The second is if it appears prominently in The Literature -- a philosophers' enemy.

I'm not too familiar with how well TAG satisfies the former, but I can say with confidence that it has vanished from the latter. No prominent apologist defends TAG anymore, and I know an oft-published philosopher of religion who wasn't even familiar with it until I mentioned it. No one in the philosophy community seems to take it seriously anymore, if they ever did.

Take comfort that the only people who defend TAG anymore are amateurs, which is almost the case with, for example, Creationism. But for a substantive critique, read on.

TAG claims that the only possible epistemic foundation is theism, or requires theism. But the connection between a person (God) and an epistemic foundation is never made clear enough to answer this question: What is it about God that makes him the only possible epistemic foundation?

We can reduce things a bit. Imagine Epistemo, a limited, physical, contingent, morally neutral being who had nothing to do with the creation of the universe, who causes epistemic foundations to exist. Atheists can be perfectly consistent in believing in Epistemo and thereby in epistemic foundations, without believing in any kind of god. The lesson is that we may reduce things further -- if Christians are permitted to assume the existence of God to secure epistemic foundations, we are permitted to assume the existence of the epistemic foundations themselves, sans any kind of singular intelligence. Ockham's Razor favors our position.

[Dr Rick]

Originally posted by luvluv
...if your worldview (let’s say materialism) is correct, then you live in a world without free choice, moral responsibility, or purpose.

Atheists enjoy as much free choice as anyone else; they just don't squander their choices on the whimsy of supernatural entities as theists sometimes do. More often than not, theists are obligated to religious fiats which constrain free choice. Depending on the brand of theism, believers must go to confession, tithe, travel to Mecca, fast, flagellate themselves, sacrifice animals, sing praises, mutilate thier children's genitals, pray, and/or kill infidels, all by command of their gods. Atheists can chose to do those things, but they aren't under any supernatural obligation to do so. Theists may also choose not to obey their gods or the humans that putatively represent them, but then they are exercising free-choice in spite of, not because of theism. "Obey and believe or suffer for all eternity" is not an encouragement to exercise free choice.

Edicts and various coercions and commands emanating from supernatural forces aren't "moral responsibility" so much as they are a system of punishments and rewards to discourage certain behavours and encourage others. Theists are supposed to appease their gods, but the motives to encourage obedience don't appear to be based upon any moral responsiblity other than a selfish desire for reward in an afterlife. Atheistic motives don't have any supernatural onus, but that hardly frees them from moral responsibility; that just means they aren't acting for the selfish gains that drive theists to obey gods and avoid their retribution.

Purpose isn't necessarily contigent upon deities even though theists often claim that it must be. Subjugating one's life for an improved outcome in another hoped-for existence detracts from the purpose of life because then it's really the next life that matters, not this one. Atheists are free to explore the meaning and purpose of existence without such delusions and without denigrating our lives in the pursuit of a make-believe later one.

Nothing, not your life, the life of your children, the progress of the human species, or even the existence of the universe has any intrinsic value. Value and worth do not actually exist, they are unscientific subjective mental constructs like beauty, truth, and God. You also live in a world where “you” don’t really exist. The “you” you supposedly experience is merely an illusion created by the process of natural selection because the concept of self provides a survival advantage. All is vanity.

On the contrary; all that an atheist knows and experiences is real for him. Our children, our species, and our universe matter because that is what exists and is real. We define our purpose rather than hoping some supernatural being will do it for us.

However, if your worldview is theistic, you get to affirm freedom, choice, moral responsibility, purpose, love, personhood, value, truth, and beauty. You really are you, the value you are tempted to put on your life and other human lives really belongs there, and to deny that value would actually be objectively wrong. You’re not an accident, you were created with a purpose, and there is the possibility of that purpose being fulfilled with your active participation.

Theists don't affirm truth, responsibility, beauty, and the other things you list so much as they defer them to a putatively superior entity. That doesn't enhance human freedoms and worth; it diminishes them. You're not an accident under theism, that's true; you are something much worse, an inferior being whose goal is to defer your own worth and judgement to avoid retribution. Your only value rests upon appeasing gods, leaving you with little more worth than that of a slave.

Now, there’s nothing that we know, or can know, which forces you to acknowledge on view or the other as being “real”, so you can pick whichever worldview suits your fancy. Now which one are you gonna pick?

The life-affirming, non-fantasy atheistic worldview is not only more real, but also more pleasant than the one of denigration and servitude dictated by religion.

The major force of presuppostionalism, in my view, is that it’s ridiculous and depressing to pick the atheistic materialism position if you don’t HAVE to. You can’t choose either position because it’s TRUE, because you don’t have any sufficient foundation for claiming to know that one or the other is true. So if either could be true, and it’s impossible to know for sure which, why in the world would you want to pick materialistic atheism, being as that it denies almost everything we value in human experience?

Not everyone needs a sky-daddy fantasy, and it's depressing to contemplate that one or more gods might lie in wait to mete-out eternal punishment for not correctly guessing which of the thousands of them might really exist. If you are really using what feels good as a guide to choosing belief, why not believe in Santa Claus and Peter-Pan, as well?

[bd-from-kg]

luvluv:

After taking a quick look at what I could find on the web about Schaeffer, I seriously doubt that your characterization of his position is correct. You seem to be reading your own Jamesian “Will to Believe” idea into his writings when it isn’t there.

Here are some excerpts from Todd Kappelman’s article, The Need to Read: Francis Schaeffer (http://www.probe.org/docs/schaeffer.html) that illustrate what I’m talking about:

[Schaeffer] argues that there are three areas in which modern mankind has an absolute necessity for God: metaphysics, morals, and epistemology. These are three areas of philosophy which have to do with, respectively, the problem of existence, the problem of man’s moral behavior, and how man can come to a true knowledge of anything at all...

When philosophy took the lead, it soon became apparent that it was not up to the task of answering the big questions. The reality of God known through His revelation, however, does provide the answers for such questions.

Let’s consider the areas of metaphysics, moral, and epistemology. The metaphysical need for the existence of God implies that there must be something or someone who is big enough, powerful enough, wise enough, and willing enough to create and maintain the universe we live in...

The moral necessity of God’s existence centers on man as a personal being and a being who distinguishes between right and wrong. There are only two options. Either man was created from an impersonal beginning and his moral system is a product of his culture, or man had a personal beginning and was given laws to follow and an internal sense of right and wrong. The moral necessity of God is founded on the philosophical need to account for why man is both cruel and wonderful at the same time. This can only be explained in terms of the biblical account of the Fall.

The epistemological necessity of God’s existence addresses our ability to know what is ultimately real. Much of the modern problem in the area of knowledge began in the seventeenth century. As the scientific revolution developed, the criteria for truth became that which could be demonstrated in a laboratory. The result was that belief in God and the miraculous, which cannot be demonstrated in a laboratory, came into doubt and were eventually dismissed by many. The final result was pessimism regarding theological truths and, more recently, any truth at all...

The only answer to these three dilemmas is an appeal to the God who is there, and to His natural and special revelation.

This sounds an awful lot like “standard” presuppositionalism. Schaeffer is saying that it’s impossible to make sense of the world without first presupposing the existence of the Christian God; that those who try to attain knowledge while rejecting God’s existence are “without foundation” – i.e., that they face a hopeless epistemological dilemma which can only be resolved by assuming the existence of the Christian God. He is not saying that theism and atheism are on an equal footing epistemologically, but that it’s much more pleasant to believe in theism, so why not? Schaeffer's presentation may be more sophisticated than theophilus’s, but at bottom it’s the same song and dance.

[luvluv]

You're probably right bd, I'm just spit balling from the series of books from him I read previously The God Who is There, Escape From Reason, and His is There And Not Silent). They may or may not express his full theology, only his apologetic approach.

(And I haven't forgotten about the hiddennesss thread, I;ve just been too lazy to post a reply. Probably happen tommorow or Sunday.)

I'd be interested to hear your thouhgts on the linked article, by the way.