Year: 2011
-
But you have to start with yourself! (Updated)
Today on the Dividing Line Dr. White took a call on presuppositionalism concerning R.C. Sproul’s objection that we cannot escape from ourselves and hence must start with ourselves in epistemology. Dr. White did not have any problem pointing out the fundamental reason that Sproul is wrong (and inconsistent) by appealing to the theological argument that we are epistemologically tied to God as it were by virtue of our having been created in the image of God. John Calvin notes this right away in his Institutes. Make sure to listen to Dr. White’s answer provided at the link above as …
-
A Paradigm Shift
As we enter into a discussion of apologetics, the very first thing we must contend with is the fact that the apologetic methodology set forth in scripture is at odds with the way in which we typically reason. This fact entails that we must prepare ourselves for a paradigm shift in the way we approach the apologetic task, and is therefore by no means a trivial a matter. The Biblical method of apologetics requires that we reason in a way that is quite unfamiliar to the average person, yet is wholly consistent with a Biblical anthropology. In other words, the …
-
James Anderson's Response to David Reiter on TAG
Some time ago I linked to a summary of and posted some Initial Comments on the Reiter Article.
Shortly thereafter I heard that two different philosophers who have been influenced by Van Til were working on responses to the Reiter article. However, the response is now complete, and was posted today by James Anderson. If I am not mistaken this is the first positive, “peer reviewed journal entry” on the Transcendental Argument for God. I know, I know, some people will argue that Philosophia Christi is not one of the journals that critics of TAG have had in …
-
New Article On Transcendental Arguments
By Robert Stern
Stern, Robert, “Transcendental Arguments”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2011 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), forthcoming URL = < http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2011/entries/transcendental-arguments/. …
-
Apologetic Mirror Objection
David Byron recently commented on this post which concerns TAG and Islam. Rather than letting a rather lengthy comment linger on an old post I have decided to post it here in full. Part of being a good apologist is being aware of common objections to one’s methodology and arguments. This leads to further study and a stronger apologetic. It also equips the apologist to be able to at the very least recognize a particular objection in the context of an apologetic encounter. Byron writes out a helpful description of what has elsewhere been labeled the Apologetic Mirror Problem (AMP). …
-
Believing to Understand
…Man was created to see God. Man by sin lost the blessedness for which he was made, and found the misery for which he was not made. He did not keep this good when he could keep it easily. Without God it is ill with us. Our labors and attempts are in vain without God. Man cannot seek God, unless God himself teaches him; nor find him, unless he reveals himself. God created man in his image, that he might be mindful of him, think of him, and love him. The believer does not seek to understand, that he may
-
A Question on Induction from Ben Wallis (Updated)
Now that Ben has clarified his answer to the problem of induction as being one largely similar to the one provided by P.F. Strawson, and now that I have pointed out the many problems with that solution in this post, I can move on to quote a question from Ben that was asked in his last comment.
…Suppose we can’t ground induction in deduction. In that case, why should we refrain from taking inductive inferences to be rational? Why is it that you think justification for a position on, say, the force of gravity on earth, cannot consist of
-
Ben Wallis responds to “induction again” (Updated)
Ben Wallis has responded to the post found here.
…Chris,
You offer several quotations from me on induction, and suggest that they are contradictory. But how? What contradiction exactly do you see? Because I confess, I cannot find any. Perhaps you think that having something new to say about induction constitutes a change in view…? I hope that’s not the case. It just means that I’m trying to find more effective ways to communicate the point, and raising other points which might bear on it. After all, there are different problems on the table, here, and they all demand
-
Miscellaneous Links
In response to some questions I have received I should mention that An Informal Introduction to Covenantal Apologetics will Lord willing resume sometime after next week. The plans as of right now are for it to consist of 50 Parts total in addition to the Introduction and Conclusion.
In the meantime I thought I would plug a few blogs which may or may not interest you.
Royce Hall writes so as to be understood clearly and breaks some pretty hefty theology and presuppositionalism down so that even those who are not familiar with either can understand them. You may find …
-
Ben Wallis, induction again, and a desperate attack on Christianity
My favorite philosopher, the Scottish skeptic David Hume, did more than just a little damage to traditional religious views in terms of their philosophical justifications. Unfortunately, those who appeal to Hume for solace in their anti-theistic battles often overlook that Hume destroyed much else besides the aforementioned philosophy of religion. Hume was a skeptic through and through, so much so that he was skeptical of his own skepticism. This general consistency with Hume with respect to skepticism came as a result of his rejection of the self-authenticating Christ of Scripture and has driven more than one unbeliever to take desperate …