Someone commenting on the site by the name Nocterro recently posted the following:
I just have one final point to make regarding presuppositions.
Presuppose: To believe or suppose in advance. (American Heritage Dictionary, 4th edition).
You said earlier in this discussion: “You presuppose autonomy in that you reject the Lordship of Christ and the interpretation of the resurrection provided by Scripture which states that it was a supernatural event and assume that a naturalistic interpretation is possible for any given evidence.”
This is wrong. In fact, you could say that I started with similar presuppositions to the ones that you have. I was a Christian for most of my life. But, after careful study of religious issues, I have determined that God(at least the Christian God) most likely does not exist and that my presuppositions were wrong. Of course I may be wrong. But the point is that I do not presuppose ‘no God’. Issues such as the existence of God must be dealt with carefully. I approach them with this attitude: ‘Is this idea true? Why or why not? How sure can I be?’ To be quite honest, I cannot think of anything that I presuppose. You might say that I presuppose that the universe exists as a response to this, however I’m not even 100% certain of this. I merely operate as if it does, because it’s more useful to do so(and the same for similar ideas). If I dropped everything until I was certain that ‘reality is real’, I would never get anything done.
The overall point is this: when an idea is presented to me, I do not immediately think ‘this is true’ or ‘this is false’. I study the issue first, then come to a conclusion.
The first thing worth mentioning is that what is in view are the presuppositions Nocterro currently has, not those of the past. Nocterro defines “presuppose” as “to believe or suppose in advance”. There are commitments that guide the interpretation of evidence which are believed or supposed prior to even examining that evidence. There are no such things as brute facts (facts which speak for themselves). Presuppositions are brought to the facts. There is a great deal more to be said about this term, but I will work from the definition provided by Nocterro as best as I am able.
Nocterro claims that he started with presuppositions that are similar to the ones I have because according to him he was a Christian for most of his life. What does the Bible say?
They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us. 1 John 2.19
According to this passage Nocterro was never a Christian. Inherent in his claim that he was a Christian is a rejection of the Word of God and a substitution of allegedly autonomous reasoning that he now attempts to “believe or suppose in advance”.
Nocterro claims, as many do, that he came to his current position “after careful study of religious issues”. Let the reader understand that “careful study of religious issues” is not what led Nocterro to his current position; it certainly did not lead me away from faith. What does the Bible say?
For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.
Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. Romans 1.21-25
According to this passage Nocterro has interpreted “religious issues” incorrectly. Inherent in his claim that he is not a Christian because of careful study of religious issues is a rejection of the Word of God and a substitution of allegedly autonomous reasoning that he now attempts to “believe or suppose in advance”.
Nocterro claims, as many do, that he came to his current position “after careful study of religious issues”. As is often the case with such claims, he fails to be very specific. Perhaps he means he has carefully studied religious issues not in terms of ‘other religions’ but in terms of philosophical cogency. Let the reader understand that careful philosophical analysis of Christianity is not what led Nocterro to his current position; it certainly did not lead me away from faith. What does the Bible say?
Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 1 Corinthians 1.20
According to this passage Nocterro has not come to reject Christianity through the “wisdom of the world”. Inherent in his claim that he has is a rejection of the Word of God and a substitution of allegedly autonomous reasoning that he now attempts to “believe or suppose in advance”.
Nocterro claims that he has “determined that God (at least the Christian God) most likely does not exist” and adds, “Of course I may be wrong. But the point is that I do not presuppose ‘no God’”. Someone who claims that God most likely does not exist and concedes that he may be wrong might be categorized as “agnostic” with respect to God. Nocterro is safely said to be claiming that he does not know whether or not God exists. What does the Bible say?
…they knew God… Romans 1.21
According to this passage Nocterro knows God. Inherent in his claim that he does not know God is a rejection of the Word of God and a substitution of allegedly autonomous reasoning that he now attempts to “believe or suppose in advance”.
What Nocterro claims with respect to his approach to issues such as the existence of God reminds one of Eve in the Garden of Eden. He writes, “Issues such as the existence of God must be dealt with carefully. I approach them with this attitude: ‘Is this idea true? Why or why not? How sure can I be?’” Calling the Word of God into question in this manner is rejecting God as final authority. It presupposes that there is a final authority higher than God by which His Word may be weighed.
For when God made a promise to Abraham, since he had no one greater by whom to swear, he swore by himself. Hebrews 6.13
Inherent in Nocterro’s alleged method is a rejection of the Word of God and a substitution of allegedly autonomous reasoning that he now attempts to “believe or suppose in advance”.
Nocterro presupposes that he thinks when he writes, “To be quite honest, I cannot think of anything that I presuppose”. Perhaps he even presupposes that he has no presuppositions. He presupposes that words have meaning, that communication is possible, senses and reasoning, etc. etc.
Nocterro closes by claiming, “when an idea is presented to me, I do not immediately think ‘this is true’ or ‘this is false’. I study the issue first, then come to a conclusion”. This presupposes that there is no finally authoritative Word like that from God which is known to be true because of the One who speaks it.
Leave a Reply