Can There Be a Catholic Presuppositionalism?

[PhilVaz]

I have reviewed the new book The Godless Delusion by Madrid / Hensley at Amazon.com (only gave it 3 stars) and am currently studying “presuppositionalism” in depth. The book makes a case for “Catholic presuppositionalism.” I have two books by Van Til, the Always Ready by Bahnsen, and a book that summarizes the “presup” case titled The Portable Presuppositionalist. Here are some choice quotes from this latter book:

“…Van Til said that the Christian God and the truth of Scripture is the only possible explanation for anything at all…in order to argue against Christianity, you have to first assume that it is true…the Christian must…assume Christianity is true before and while arguing that it is true…” (The Portable Presuppositionalist, page 32, 33)

“If Jesus Christ is really Lord over all, Van Til argued, then the human mind (or consciousness) is not the ultimate and permanent starting point in reasoning; God is…Notice the sheer weight of Van Til’s thought at this point. If his philosophy…is correct, then the entire method of Thomas Aquinas, the evidentialism of Warfield, and the majority of their modern day followers…are defective. They are fundamentally flawed.” (TPP, page 37-38)

“…the transcendental argument is in fact, the most powerful argument ever known – for it reveals the necessary basis for any and all arguments, human predication, and intelligible human experience…Van Til’s argument is not irrational or contrary to logic – it is the very foundation for rationality, logic, and in fact, everything else that can be interpreted and experienced by the human being.” (TPP, page 64, 65)

“God as the Creator is Himself and His Word the ultimate starting point.” (TPP, page 68)

“…the presuppositionalist insists that God first be called the ‘universal presupposition necessary for life and for the ordering of knowledge,’ and that God be called ‘the foundation upon which all rationality is established,’ and the ‘necessary precondition for any and all science.’ Why? Because logic is not the self-existent Creator of all things, God is!” (TPP, page 77, emphasis in original)

“The traditionalist wants to assert that the laws of logic are the superior starting point for knowledge, science, and apologetic discourse…We cannot have knowledge of God without logic. However, we can have God without the laws of logic, or at least our formal understanding of those laws…God is inherently more ultimate than logic.” (TPP, page 77, emphasis in original)

“The presuppositionalist maintains that we should presuppose the authority and divinity of Christ and His Word just like Paul does in Colossians 2. God is self-existent and self-validating because of who He is (his nature). God’s Word is self-attesting and self-verifying because of what It is (the nature of God’s Word); there is no higher standard by which to make truth claims. That is what is meant by a presuppositionalist, ‘circular argument.’ The beginning and end of the presuppositionalist argument is the same. It starts where it ends.” (TPP, page 85-86)

“To simply believe in God’s Word because it is God’s Word is to reason presuppositionally…The presupposition that the Bible is the Word of God is not arbitrary; it is A.) morally demanded by God, and B.) the only assumption that is philosophically sufficient to provide a worldview that can explain logic, ethics, science, human predication and the possibility of any and all knowledge.” (TPP, page 94, 95)

I maintain there cannot be such an animal as a Catholic presuppositionalist, given the statements above. It is inherently a Reformed and anti-Catholic method of “Christian apologetics.” It is subjective, it is circular, it is based on assertions, it is not an argument, it denigrates logic, it rejects Thomas Aquinas, and it rejects the First Vatican Council which says that “God, the source and end of all things, can be known with certainty from the consideration of created things, by the natural power of human reason.” What do you think?

The only “presuppositionalist” type argument in Catholic apologetics that does come up all the time is when the Catholic challenges the Bible-only Christian to prove their “presupposition” (or assumption, same word) of “sola scriptura” – prove that by the Bible alone. In that sense, this “Catholic presuppositional” argument is valid. But otherwise, No.

Phil P

 

[JohnDamian]

You rightly say there cannot be a Catholic presuppositionalist; this is why (in my opinion);

“…Van Til said that the Christian God and the truth of Scripture is the only possible explanation for anything at all…in order to argue against Christianity, you have to first assume that it is true…the Christian must…assume Christianity is true before and while arguing that it is true…” (The Portable Presuppositionalist, page 32, 33)

There is no reason to internalise that presumption; even if one operates from it’s basis.

“If Jesus Christ is really Lord over all, Van Til argued, then the human mind (or consciousness) is not the ultimate and permanent starting point in reasoning; God is…Notice the sheer weight of Van Til’s thought at this point. If his philosophy…is correct, then the entire method of Thomas Aquinas, the evidentialism of Warfield, and the majority of their modern day followers…are defective. They are fundamentally flawed.” (TPP, page 37-38)

There is no evidential or practical reason why God must be a first principle in the causal construction of an argument or discussion unless the later premesis rely upon that presupposition; which in general they do not. Specifically so with regards to the presupposition of a trinitarian and Christian God.

“…the transcendental argument is in fact, the most powerful argument ever known – for it reveals the necessary basis for any and all arguments, human predication, and intelligible human experience…Van Til’s argument is not irrational or contrary to logic – it is the very foundation for rationality, logic, and in fact, everything else that can be interpreted and experienced by the human being.” (TPP, page 64, 65)

Transcendental argumentation only constitutes a practical teleology; it is not implicit the whole nature of this teleology; and it is presupposed that the positive is that magnified. For example; with omnipotence one could easily presuppose that nihil is over aliquid; thus that God is evil; and work from a logical teleology on this point. Transcendental argumentations are practical but not conclusive.

“God as the Creator is Himself and His Word the ultimate starting point.” (TPP, page 68)

I could equally say God is not the ultimate starting point. Evidence is required for either of these claims. For me there is no good reason to accept God as a necessary starting point in all equasions.

“The traditionalist wants to assert that the laws of logic are the superior starting point for knowledge, science, and apologetic discourse…We cannot have knowledge of God without logic. However, we can have God without the laws of logic, or at least our formal understanding of those laws…God is inherently more ultimate than logic.” (TPP, page 77, emphasis in original)

We can have God without the laws of Logic; and evidently God is more ultimate than logic; however it does not follow from this that a communion with God is the practicable method to pursue knowlege about him. See this; taking myself as an example: I am evidently more real than any knowlege about me; thus the only way you can know me is in person - and not through my posts here; pictures of me; witnesses; logic etc. etc. etc. this is obviously absurd – The method for understanding an object is not necessarily most practical to go *through *that object.

“The presuppositionalist maintains that we should presuppose the authority and divinity of Christ and His Word just like Paul does in Colossians 2. … That is what is meant by a presuppositionalist, ‘circular argument.’ The beginning and end of the presuppositionalist argument is the same. It starts where it ends.” (TPP, page 85-86)

Circular reasoning is bad; I could say that because of the following example:-- I am God; so when I say Circular reasoning is bad I am correct; I am God because I say I am God; this is true Because I am God… It is patently absurd.

“To simply believe in God’s Word because it is God’s Word is to reason presuppositionally…, ethics, science, human predication and the possibility of any and all knowledge.” (TPP, page 94, 95)

B is incorrect. I could easily make the unproven and spurious claim that the Koran, or The Bhagavad Gita were the only assumption that is philosophically sufficient to provide and so on etc…

I maintain there cannot be such an animal as a Catholic presuppositionalist, given the statements above. It is inherently a Reformed and anti-Catholic method of “Christian apologetics.” It is subjective, it is circular, it is based on assertions, it is not an argument, it denigrates logic, it rejects Thomas Aquinas, and it rejects the First Vatican Council which says that “God, the source and end of all things, can be known with certainty from the consideration of created things, by the natural power of human reason.” What do you think?

Absolutely correct; there cannot be a Catholic Presuppositionalist. Your explanations are correct; it contradicts the Church teaching. However; it is not against the Church to reject Thomas Aquinas; Bishop Gennari, Cardinal Lorenzo Brancati di Lauria, Pope Alexander V, Pope Sixtus IV, Elector Frederick III, Francis Mayron, Bl Duns Scotus, Pope Pius IX(ex-cathedera), Proclus, Pseudo-Aristotle, Giovanni Pico della Mirandola to name a few.

I think presuppositionalism is an alarming philosophy which regards conjecture and circular arguments as something desirable…

 

[Prophesy]

You rightly say there cannot be a Catholic presuppositionalist; this is why (in my opinion);

There is no reason to internalise that presumption; even if one operates from it’s basis.

There is no evidential or practical reason why God must be a first principle in the causal construction of an argument or discussion unless the later premesis rely upon that presupposition; which in general they do not. Specifically so with regards to the presupposition of a trinitarian and Christian God.

Transcendental argumentation only constitutes a practical teleology; it is not implicit the whole nature of this teleology; and it is presupposed that the positive is that magnified. For example; with omnipotence one could easily presuppose that nihil is over aliquid; thus that God is evil; and work from a logical teleology on this point. Transcendental argumentations are practical but not conclusive.

I could equally say God is not the ultimate starting point. Evidence is required for either of these claims. For me there is no good reason to accept God as a necessary starting point in all equasions.

We can have God without the laws of Logic; and evidently God is more ultimate than logic; however it does not follow from this that a communion with God is the practicable method to pursue knowlege about him. See this; taking myself as an example: I am evidently more real than any knowlege about me; thus the only way you can know me is in person - and not through my posts here; pictures of me; witnesses; logic etc. etc. etc. this is obviously absurd – The method for understanding an object is not necessarily most practical to go *through *that object.

Circular reasoning is bad; I could say that because of the following example:-- I am God; so when I say Circular reasoning is bad I am correct; I am God because I say I am God; this is true Because I am God… It is patently absurd.

B is incorrect. I could easily make the unproven and spurious claim that the Koran, or The Bhagavad Gita were the only assumption that is philosophically sufficient to provide and so on etc…

Absolutely correct; there cannot be a Catholic Presuppositionalist. Your explanations are correct; it contradicts the Church teaching. However; it is not against the Church to reject Thomas Aquinas; Bishop Gennari, Cardinal Lorenzo Brancati di Lauria, Pope Alexander V, Pope Sixtus IV, Elector Frederick III, Francis Mayron, Bl Duns Scotus, Pope Pius IX(ex-cathedera), Proclus, Pseudo-Aristotle, Giovanni Pico della Mirandola to name a few.

I think presuppositionalism is an alarming philosophy which regards conjecture and circular arguments as something desirable…

I know of one individual who does Catholic apologetics through presuppositionalist argumentation, however he was critical Van Til’s presuppositionalism. I’m going to try and dig up his piece on Catholic presuppositionalism as opposed to Van Til’s.

-Prophecy

 

[PhilVaz]

Thanks for the responses. I want to be fair with the Madrid / Hensley book. While they do call their main argument “presuppositional” apologetics, they don’t go as far as Van Til or those quotes from The Portable Presuppositionalist. They don’t quote or rely on van Til or Bahnsen or Reformed writers at all. The Godless Delusion is mainly a “comparison of worldviews” (naturalism vs. Christian theism) with a reductio ad absurdum tossed in against the atheist. That is just part of the presuppositional case.

For example, their moral argument basically comes from C.S. Lewis, not van Til. They also do a good job showing how a purely ‘evolutionary’ or ‘naturalistic’ origin of humanity makes it difficult to explain free will, love, the mind/soul, consciousness, truth, knowledge, ethics, etc. while the Christian worldview makes better sense of these phenomena. It doesn’t “prove” Christian theism in my opinion, but does make atheism less plausible.

I am reviewing the book in more depth here: Review of The Godless Delusion

Phil P

 

[PhilVaz]

I am almost done with my expanded review of Madrid / Hensley.

Basically I changed my mind from my initial Amazon.com review and revised the text: while The Godless Delusion calls itself “presuppositional” apologetics, the full Van Til type “presuppositionalism” (which I see as circular) is not argued in the book. The book is basically a comparison of worldviews, showing the theistic Christian one is superior to the atheist one. This does not involve circular reasoning.

Review of The Godless Delusion

Phil P