Catholic view of Presuppositional Apologetics?

[LeonardDeNoblac]

I’ve done some researches about Presuppositional Apologetics, and I have to admit that I found some of the trascendental arguments pretty sound. I know that this apologetic methodology has been developed by Protestants (especially Calvinists ), and is therefore considered by them “THE reformed apologetic methodology”. But I also know that Van Til and his followers took important points from Saint Augustine, who is a Saint, a Father and a Doctor of the Catholic Church (even thought some Calvinists try to argue that he was one of their predecessors, especially since the Calvinistic doctrine of predestination is basically a twisted Augustinianism ). So, how should Catholics view Presuppositional Apologetics? Is it compatible with Catholic doctrine? How does it relate with the Catholic tradition of Classical Apologetics, a main representative of wich is Saint Thomas Aquinas?

 

[IWantGod]

I’ve done some researches about Presuppositional Apologetics, and I have to admit that I found some of the trascendental arguments pretty sound. I know that this apologetic methodology has been developed by Protestants (especially Calvinists ), and is therefore considered by them “THE reformed apologetic methodology”. But I also know that Van Til and his followers took important points from Saint Augustine, who is a Saint, a Father and a Doctor of the Catholic Church (even thought some Calvinists try to argue that he was one of their predecessors, especially since the Calvinistic doctrine of predestination is basically a twisted Augustinianism ). So, how should Catholics view Presuppositional Apologetics? Is it compatible with Catholic doctrine? How does it relate with the Catholic tradition of Classical Apologetics, a main representative of wich is Saint Thomas Aquinas?

Can you give me an example, a classic presupposition argument? I am new to this.

 

[LeonardDeNoblac]

They basically argue that the Christian God is the necessary precondition for things like intelligibility, the possibility of knowledge, the uniformity of nature, reason, logic and morality. Let’s take uniformity of nature as an example. They argue that, in an atheistic universe, there would be no reason for believing that the laws of physics (like gravity ) will remain always the same and won’t suddenly cease to have effect. That’s because an atheistic universe, the existence of wich would have no ultimate purpose or meaning, could only be guided by chaotic random chance, without an all-powerful ultimate authority to sustain it. So, given atheism, there would be no reason for trusting empirical and rational knowledge, because everything we know about reality could change at any moment, wich would destroy predictability (a necessary requirement for science to make sense ) and make any true knowledge of reality impossible. This would leave atheists with no room left to argue against God, wich they would have to presuppose in order for their argument to have even the possibility of making sense.

 

[Wesrock]

They basically argue that the Christian God is the necessary precondition for things like intelligibility, the possibility of knowledge, the uniformity of nature, reason, logic and morality. Let’s take uniformity of nature as an example. They argue that, in an atheistic universe, there would be no reason for believing that the laws of physics (like gravity ) will remain always the same and won’t suddenly cease to have effect. That’s because an atheistic universe, the existence of wich would have no ultimate purpose or meaning, could only be guided by chaotic random chance, without an all-powerful ultimate authority to sustain it. So, given atheism, there would be no reason for trusting empirical and rational knowledge, because everything we know about reality could change at any moment, wich destroys predictability (a necessary requirement for science to make sense ) and makes any true knowledge of reality impossible. This would leave atheists with no room left to argue against God, wich they would have to presuppose in order for their argument to have even the possibility of making sense.

Sounds like a lot of overlap with Thomist theology, which argues the same points (among other things, and with some additional, Thomist background material to get there).

 

[LeonardDeNoblac]

I’ve noted that, some of them even accuse Thomists of using a faulty apologetic methodology (wich is absurd, since Thomism argues the same points, among other things ). I think they do that out of their hatred for Catholicism, not wanting to give any credit to one of the greatest Catholic philosophers ever (they may try to make Augistine appear Calvinist, but they will never succeed in making Thomas Aquinas appear Protestant ).

 

[IWantGod]

Christian God is the necessary precondition for things like intelligibility

I definitely agree that God is a precondition for logical truth, that is to say i think the principle of non-contradiction only makes sense if there is a necessary unchanging being that has a nature which makes certain things impossible. Since it is possible for there to be no universe (because it changes and has parts that come into being) It cannot be true that physical reality is the root of possibility and impossibility.

 

[Wesrock]

I’ve noted that, some of them even accuse Thomists of using a faulty apologetic methodology (wich is absurd, since Thomism argues the same points, among other things ). I think they do that out of their hatred for Catholicism and Catholic theology.

I’m sure they disagree with the Aristotlean approach. Rationalists like Leibniz and defenders of the Principle of Sufficient Reason in a non-Thomist framework can come to the same conclusion.

 

[IWantGod]

They argue that, in an atheistic universe, there would be no reason for believing that the laws of physics (like gravity ) will remain always the same and won’t suddenly cease to have effect. That’s because an atheistic universe, the existence of wich would have no ultimate purpose or meaning, could only be guided by chaotic random chance, without an all-powerful ultimate authority to sustain it. So, given atheism, there would be no reason for trusting empirical and rational knowledge, because everything we know about reality could change at any moment, wich would destroy predictability (a necessary requirement for science to make sense ) and make any true knowledge of reality impossible. This would leave atheists with no room left to argue against God, wich they would have to presuppose in order for their argument to have even the possibility of making sense.

I agree with this. There is no reason to think that the universe won’t just pop out of existence unless it is being maintained by a necessary being, which is what we call God.

 

[LeonardDeNoblac]

Oh yes, they hate Aristotle (because, you know, he was an unregenerate pagan, and you know, Sola Scriptura… all their theology has to come from the Bible, they even trace back such things as the Law of Identity and the Law of Non-Contradiction from the Bible, without giving any credit to Aristotle )

 

[Wesrock]

Anyway, I’m not familiar with the Calvinist methods or background material of presuppositionalism, but a Catholic could certainly take the tact that you summarized, and he wouldn’t even need to subscribe to Thomism at all.

 

[STT]

They basically argue that the Christian God is the necessary precondition for things like intelligibility, the possibility of knowledge, the uniformity of nature, reason, logic and morality. Let’s take uniformity of nature as an example. They argue that, in an atheistic universe, there would be no reason for believing that the laws of physics (like gravity ) will remain always the same and won’t suddenly cease to have effect. That’s because an atheistic universe, the existence of wich would have no ultimate purpose or meaning, could only be guided by chaotic random chance, without an all-powerful ultimate authority to sustain it. So, given atheism, there would be no reason for trusting empirical and rational knowledge, because everything we know about reality could change at any moment, wich would destroy predictability (a necessary requirement for science to make sense ) and make any true knowledge of reality impossible. This would leave atheists with no room left to argue against God, wich they would have to presuppose in order for their argument to have even the possibility of making sense.

The universe which is subject of the laws is as possible as a chaotic universe. There is life here and not there. So the argument fails.

 

[Wesrock]

According to Wikipedia:

Presuppositionalism is a school of Christian apologetics that believes the Christian faith is the only basis for rational thought. It presupposes that the Bible is divine revelation and attempts to expose flaws in other worldviews.

I’m sure there’s more to it, but that’s not quite the Catholic approach to our faith in Scripture. I’m not sure it’s the steadiest ground to stand on to simply take that presupposition. I don’t think it’s absolutely contrary to being a Catholic, but where it seems like Presuppositionists say it’s faulty to argue with skeptics from neutral ground, the Church and its theologians largely disagree on that point, and even consider it de fide that knowledge that there is a God and some basics can be got to apart from Revelation.

 

[LeonardDeNoblac]

But we don’t live in a chaotic universe. It has been discovered that the fundamental laws of physics (like gravity ) were always in effect since the times of the Big Bang.

 

[STT]

But we don’t live in a chaotic universe. It has been observed that the fundamental laws of physics (like gravity ) were always in effect since the Big Bang.

Yes, we are not living in a chaotic universe since life cannot exist in such a universe. You need to show that chaotic universe is impossible. That is the first step of your proof since you can then show that the universe which is subjected to laws is the only possibility. You then need to show that a universe which is subjected to laws cannot exist on its own. Our universe could be the optimal. You don’t a sustainer for a universe which is optimal.

 

[LeonardDeNoblac]

You need to show that chaotic universe is impossible. That is the first step of your proof since you can then show that the universe which is subjected to laws is the only possibility.

In order for the argument to work there’s no need to demonstrate the impossibility of a chaotic universe (even thought I think it could be done ). What is required is an account for the actual universe, wich is subjected to laws.

 

[STT]

In order for the argument to work there’s no need to demonstrate the impossibility of a chaotic universe (even thought I think it could be done ). What is required is an account for the actual universe, wich is subjected to laws.

Well, I am afraid that you need. Well, you need to show the impossibility of chaotic universe because otherwise our universe is only a possibility similar to chaotic universe.

 

[LeonardDeNoblac]

But, even if we admit for the sake of argument that the existence of a chaotic universe is possible, the actual universe is not chaotic, but is subjected to laws, and this needs to be accounted for.

 

[STT]

But, even if we admit for the sake of argument that the existence of a chaotic universe is possible, the actual universe is not chaotic, but subjected to laws, and this needs to be accounted for.

Our universe is lawful and that allows life. It is only a possibility unless you show otherwise. That is necessary to show because the universe could have any other form when is only a possibility.

 

[Wesrock]

LeonardDeNoblac:

But, even if we admit for the sake of argument that the existence of a chaotic universe is possible, the actual universe is not chaotic, but subjected to laws, and this needs to be accounted for.

Our universe is lawful and that allows life. It is only a possibility unless you show otherwise. That is necessary to show because the universe could have any other form when is only a possibility.

All he is saying here is that a “lawful universe,” which we have, can be demonstrated to require a creator.

 

[LeonardDeNoblac]

Yes, at the very least, the possibility that came from potency to act. It is a fact that our universe is lawful, and it needs an explanation.