What would this conversation look like with a real presupper? Sorta like this.
Before anyone gets too excited by Haines’ upcoming critique of Van Til at SES (including Haines himself, I might add), it might be useful to point out a common mistake he has made in discussion of Van Til thus far.
The philosopher or apologist who is well acquainted with the modern and post-modern philosophy of Immanuel Kant, G. W. F. Hegel, Edmund Husserl and Martin Heidegger will recognize that Van Til’s system of apologetics is very much dependent upon these sources.
He notes this in the body of his announcement for his SES talk – but it might be illustrative …
In part 2, we had a look at a practical example, and briefly went over the “in practice/ in principle” distinction, as well as some criteria for evaluating worldview’s, however, it may be worth expanding these ideas themselves into another post to look a bit more in-depth at them, as well as some others.
In practice / In principle:
Why is the “in practice / in principle” distinction important? Well, it normally arises in response to an objection similar to this hypothetical:
“If God didn’t exist, you couldn’t know how to balance your budgets!”
To which an unbeliever could …
Please read Part 1 here
So, as we saw in part 1, there is no such thing as neutrality – everyone has a bias, everyone has a worldview.
The question now becomes what we do next? Do we simply say to an unbeliever, I don’t like your worldview and how you are interpreting the evidence, and you don’t like mine and how I interpret the evidence, so we will never be able to be in agreement about the facts, so lets just go home and leave this all behind us?
What does scripture say?
4Do not answer a …
This would probably be a very easy question to answer, and yet at the same time, a fairly lengthy question to answer.
I will try to keep this as accessible as possible, and translate a lot of the jargon that gets used when talking about these things into more readily understandable ideas and explanations.
The easiest answer is: everything.
(Rom 1:20: For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities–his eternal power and divine nature–have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.)
Everything is evidence for God’s existence. And not …
A great time was had – and thanks especially to Ben Woodring, aka Book, for getting the almost whole gang back together. Brian, Chris, myself, Resequitur, and brigand all stopped in, and we talked Covenantal Apologetics. Ben asked us some basic questions, we shared some history, and what our motivations and experiences have been over the years. Looking forward to being around for a long time to come, slow posting or not. Enjoy – I sure did!
An Introduction, and A Few Articles Examined
As the adoptive father of a teenage son who many would consider “black” (as he is the product of a “white” biological mother and a “black” biological father – who we don’t even have a name for) living in the Deep South, it is vitally important for me to a have a developed anthropology, in order to faithfully deal with so-called “racial” issues. This is true not particularly for my sake, personally, or even for that of my oldest son’s; but for the internal consistency of my own family. As the father believes …
I’m sure the title got your attention. So let’s unpack it. I’d like to challenge you to prove (if only to yourself) not only that your particular race, but that races in general, exist. I ask this, because racism, racists, and racial identity itself depends on there being races to begin with. All of these things presuppose that category, in fact. I reject the category of “races” as a subjectivistic, modernistic, arbitrary construct. There is one race – the human race.
As I have noted before, the notion of race seems to be inveterate – ingrained into modern western …