Are Evidences Even Useful?

An objection that is sometimes raised against presuppositional apologetics is that we ignore evidences for/against Christianity and focus instead simply on cerebral arguments to misdirect our attention from the “fact” that there is no evidence for the existence of God.

However, this is a misrepresentation of what we teach, and is indeed, a misrepresentation of Van Til’s apologetic, as is seen in the following quote:

The point… is not that factual apologetics is useless but that it alone and by itself is insufficient, if we are considering the question of a logically consistent and comprehensive apologetics. If I deny vigorously that you can run 100 miles I have not therein denied that you can run at all. Because I have said that factual apologetics is, say, half the work, I have not said that half is not important. If someone could prove that the human species has actually derived from animal species, Christian-theism would be disproved. It is therefore important to show that the facts do not warrant any such idea. But even when that has been done the whole work has not been done. A discussion of the philosophy of fact will have to accompany a discussion of the facts themselves. If Dr. Machen has shown that the resurrection of Christ is an actual historical occurrence he has done an inestimable piece of service. But if then the pragmatic philosopher comes along and says that this is an interesting item in this strange world but that it has no universal significance, the factual discussion is in itself for that man quite fruitless unless it is supplemented by a discussion of the philosophy of fact.”[1]

  1. [1]CVT to J. Oliver Buswell. February 1, 1937, CVT Archives, WTS.

Leave a Comment