I think "presuppositional onlyism" is a phrase I invented a while back. I'm not sure if I've ever heard other people use it or not. What I mean by it is the view that the presuppositional method of doing apologetics is the only right way to do apologetics. So if you're an onlyist, then you'll reject evidentialism or classical apologetics (and whatever other methods of doing apologetics there might be). You see, my philosophy has always been that a sound argument is a sound argument, whether it's presuppositional, evidential, or whatever. I'm a "sound argument onlyist," and I don't care what kind of argument it is as long as it's sound. I think we should use all the tools of reason that God gave us to arrive at truths to the best of our ability.
People hold to presuppositional onlyism for different reasons. Some people subscribe to it because evidential arguments only give us probabilities at best whereas presuppositional arguments give us certainty. Other people think evidential arguments are completely worthless and presuppositional arguments are the only sound arguments. But then there's the presuppositional onlyists who object to any other method of doing apologetics on moral grounds. It isn't that evidential arguments are fallacious or unpersuasive, but that it's immoral to use them. Presuppositional arguments are the only arguments that glorify God.
I want to respond to a particular moral argument that James White has often made for presuppositional onlyism. Before I do, let me give a brief explanation of the difference between presuppositionalism and evidentialism.
An evidentialist will start with premises he hopes the other person will accept. He tries to find common ground between the other person so there'll be a starting place for the discussion to go forward. Then he tries to show that God exists either because God's existence can be deduced from those premises or the premises increase the likelihood that God exists. Presuppositionalists, on the other hand, don't argue to the existence of God. Rather, they argue from the existence of God. God is a presupposition. It's a foundational item of knowledge upon which all other knowledge is built. A presuppositionalist will argue that if you don't presuppose God, then nothing else makes sense. No argument against God can be coherent since arguments depend on logic, and logic depends on God, so any argument against God is self-refuting and incoherent. The denial of God undermines the necessary preconditions for rational thought, so God cannot be rationally denied.
James White opposes any method of apologetics that involves arguing to the existence of God on the basis that doing so amounts to "putting God on trial." If you present an argument to an atheist for the existence of God, then you are asking the atheist to judge God. But we creatures are in no position to judge God, and asking a God-denier to judge God is downright blasphemous.
I think this is pure sophistry. White is using loaded language in place of sound argumentation to make his case for presuppositional onlyism. The phrase, "putting God on trial," has a very negative connotation to it. It conjures up an image of God being placed on the witness stand and being accused of immorality while mere sinful creatures debate whether God is worthy to be salvaged or gotten rid of. That does paint a negative picture, but this is all spin and sophistry. If you really look at what's going on, there's nothing immoral about it. All we are doing is using our own powers of intellect to try to figure out whether the proposition, "God exists," is true or not.
Not only is there nothing immoral about that, but it's actually something we all must do. There's no escaping it. Even presuppositionalists have to do it. Belief is something you do with your mind, and you have nothing but your own mind with which to do your believing. So you have no choice but to use your own cognitive faculties to the best of your ability to distinguish between what is true and what is false. Any item of knowledge whatsoever that you could possibly have is an item of knowledge that you must use your own intellectual faculties to either affirm or deny. It cannot possibly be immoral to ponder the question, "Does God exist?" since one cannot affirm or deny the existence of God without pondering that question. To ponder that question and attempt to answer it does not amount to "putting God on trial."
Presuppositionalists do not escape this situation merely by presupposing the existence of God. After all, how do they know they ought to presuppose the existence of God? You see, presuppositional arguments barely differ from evidential arguments if you think about it. Consider the argument above that I gave. The argument goes something like this:
* If there is no God, then there could be no logic, knowledge, or reason.When a presuppositionalist tries to show an atheist the incoherence in his worldview and that the atheist must borrow theism from the Christian worldview in order to launch a coherent argument, they are trying to get the atheist to see the necessity of God's existence. In other words, they are giving the atheist a reason to believe in God. They are using the common ground they share with atheists--logic--as a premise in an argument for God. How is that any less "putting God on trial," then using the moral realism as a premise in an argument for God? It is because of presuppositional arguments that presuppositionalists are so confident that God exists. They think these arguments are sound.
* There is logic, knowledge, and reason.
* Therefore, there is a God.
James White has no problem arguing about the nature of God with people who do not share his view. He has debated modalists and Arians on the trinitarian nature of God. In those debates, you had sinners on each side offering Biblical evidence in support of what they thought was the correct view of God. Was that putting God on trial? I never heard White argue that unless the Jehovah's Witness presupposes the doctrine of the Trinity, they cannot launch a rational argument. No, he uses the evidence from language, scripture, reason, and logic to deduce that God is a trinity. He began with the common ground he had with the Jehovah's Witness--the inerrancy of Scripture--and he argued to the Trinity. He did not argue from the Trinity.
In Acts 2, Peter stood up before an unbelieving crowd and made an argument for the resurrection of Jesus. He quoted David as saying, "Because You will not abandon my soul to Hades, nor allow Your Holy One to undergo decay." Then he pointed to the occupied tomb of David (in contrast to the empty tomb of Jesus) as evidence that David was not talking about himself but was, instead, looking forward to the resurrection of Christ--a descendent of David who Peter identified as the same Jesus that crowd had crucified by the hands of godless men. Was Peter putting Jesus on trial by presenting this evidence and making this argument to an unbelieving crowd?
I don't see how an argument that has true premises and valid reasoning can be immoral. Are we supposed to not think about the premises and the logical connection between them? Or are we just not supposed to say them out loud? Or are we not supposed to find them persuasive? Consider the argument from the resurrection of Jesus. Is it immoral to say or think, "Jesus would not have risen from the dead if YHWH were not the one true God"? Maybe not. Maybe the sin comes when we follow it immediately with, "Jesus was risen from the dead." But, oh my goodness, far be it from a sinner to ever see the logical connection between these two statements and draw the inference that "YHWH is the one true God." And if they do venture into this dangerous territory, I suppose it would be utter blasphemy to ever share this line of thought with an atheist. Turning my sarcasm off, now, I find it utterly absurd to think that arguing evidentially for the existence of God is immoral.
It does not dishonor God to argue evidentially. God created us to argue this way, and there's no Biblical prohibition that restricts our tools of reason and logic to everything except God. And since we have no choice but to use our ability think in order to distinguish between true and false, we must use our ability to think in order to affirm or deny the existence of God. If that's immoral, and I don't see how it possibly could be, then thank God for his mercy and grace because we're stuck and can do no other.
No comments:
Post a Comment