Chris makes some initial comments on the second podcast in the series on presuppositional apologetics at Reasonable Doubts.
Praxis Presup: Episode 20
7 responses to “Praxis Presup: Episode 20”
Thanks again for your critique(s) Chris.
1.) In regards to the nit-picky complaint, what we were trying to do was give a broad overview of Presuppositional Apologetics to prepare our listeners for later episodes. We were not attempting to be exhaustive because that is not necessary. We wanted to show why and how PA is so vastly different and so cannot not be approached in the way our listeners are used to approaching a classical apologist. I appreciate your willingness to listen and provide criticism, we welcome it. Our annoyance to the nit-picky nature of your first review was that it seemed to us very petty to do such a thing to a broad overview of some complex topic like PA.
If we were presenting actual arguments, the nit-picking would be welcome and expected as that is necessary for good criticism. With that said, we do appreciate you providing some clarifications and corrections to more fundamental issues.
2.) Nobody expects you to know the different hosts of the show, but the one admitting ignorance of presuppositionalism was our co-host who was not doing any conter-apologetic presenting. The presenters were Jeremy and myself.
3.) I appreciate the correction/clarification regarding the relationship between the Gospel and the Holy Spirit.
4.) Regarding my statement about Van Til, here is a quote. “Men ought to reason analogically from nature to nature’s God. Men ought, therefore, to use the cosmological argument analogically in order thus to conclude that God is the creator of this universe…. Men ought also to use the ontological argument analogically”
The words ‘To conclude that God is the creator of this universe’ in particular are what leads me and many other presuppositinoalist bloggers to think this as it seems to imply moving from a neutral point to a conclusion, although I now see an alternative interpretation is also possible. Perhaps this is the inherent danger of researching ideas that are largely isolated to unregulated blogs.
5.) We are all fairly busy, especially Jeremy, and it is likely that he never actually saw the reply you mention near the tail-end of this podcast. The laughter, which was admittedly unprofessional and mostly mine, is what happens when I try to imagine believing that everybody that has ever lived either lies about their knowledge of God or has no conscious awareness because it is suppressed unconciously but is still held responsible for it. That, I hope you understand, is a difficult thing to imagine and can tease some laughter out.
I hope that helps explain/clarify some of the issues you had with our latest episode.
Hey Chris, we don’t have any plans for setting up a debate on these matters any time soon as we have several unrelated episodes planned that we will be busy preparing for. We look forward to hearing any meaningful objections you might have in response to the main arguments we presented episode 98 of the Reasonable Doubts Podcast.
I’ll add that while a formal debate is not likely to happen in the near future, we most certainly will give a thoughtful response (audio, written or both) in a prompt manner to any critiques you put forth of our main arguments in rd98 (once we hear them of course).