I’m wondering if presuppositional apologetics as utilized by the late Greg Bahnsen, is compatible with Catholic apologetics, i.e., classical apologetics. I provide a link below, or one can simply Google “Greg Bahnsen” for further info. I’m not at all well versed in this, so I hope my question is valid.
youtube.com/watch?v=vPn8AX6Ru3E
There was a man on the CA forums a while back who also liked Greg Bahsen. I went to a website and downloaded one of his talks. I can’t say I completed it, but I’ll give you a general sketch.
The general thrust of Catholic apologetics tends towards a foundationalist structure. The idea is that we have some truths and beliefs which are “foundational” and from which we can deduce truths which are “preambles” to the Christian faith. The existence of God under the aspect of necessary being, first mover, and first efficient cause is one example of a “preamble” to the faith that St. Thomas Aquinas thinks is knowable by reason.
In general “reformed” Christians take a different view. The most important article to read on this would probably be from Alvin Plantinga. He is a reformed Christian (a Calvinist) who wrote a very good article on the structures and foundations of belief.
The argument goes a little something like this. Suppose that we have x, y, z in the foundations of our belief. For what reason can we also exclude p? If we say that p cannot be deduced from x, y, z then we beg the question,
for we have given no reason why p cannot be equally foundational with x, y,z.
In classical philosophy, it is generally the case that we take the reliable sources of knowledge (the senses, introspection, reason, memory) as foundational to our beliefs. But Plantinga asks… why can’t we just take God’s existence as also being foundational? He thinks that any reason you can give to say that the reliable sources should be in the foundations of our beliefs either won’t exclude also holding to God’s existence, or that it will simply beg the question (it will set out what it tries to prove). And if we do include God’s existence in our basic belief structure, then no one can call us “irrational.” After all, what is foundational cannot, by definition, be susceptible to proof. It is not irrational to accept what is foundational without proof.
The problem, of course, is that this is little solace for someone who wants to defend these doctrines rationally. It then just seems
arbitrary what we choose to put in the foundations of our belief structures, and I will be unable to convince anyone to put in the things I find to be important. Plus, the motivation for the Calvinist Christian to be a presuppositionalist is usually that he thinks that the human mind is too wounded by sin to be able to reach truth about the preambles to the faith. Such a position is most definitely at odds with the Catholic tradition, and certainly contradicts the first Vatican council.
Does that touch a little bit on what the “presuppositionalist” does?
