Wow. TIL Presuppusitionalism is a thing... Oh my word. I am so sorry you had to spend so many years under that. I guess I was in a similar box, but never that formalised. This explains so much...
Many seem to be hyper-Biblicists from 2 Timothy 3:16-17 and act as though there is no rational thought that can come apart from Scripture, but clearly God speaks through more than just the Bible. Solo Scriptura vs Sola Scriptura. What I realized is many of my teachers never read much of anything prior to the Reformation and ironically interpret the Bible through their own modern liberal lens. I went decades before I even knew who King Alfred was and looking back that's pathetic.
I'm not a presuppositionalist for many reasons, but I don't actually see how your argument defeats presuppositionalism. A lot of presuppositionalists argue that there is common ground - eg., on morality - that emerges from their implicit belief in Christianity (cf. Romans 1). And therefore, we can use people's moral convictions as the stepping stone towards Christianity. Nihilism is mentioned only as a reductio ad absurdum of the sceptic's foundational commitments, not as something the sceptic should seriously consider. The second part of the video regarding Christian humanism and empiricism is more on-track, I think. That seems to reflect a basic epistemological disagreement between the natural theologian and the Van Tilian. This is a slick and well-produced video, though! Also a philosophy graduate here ;)
Thanks! And thanks for the careful analysis. *I* don’t actually see how the first set of claims are distinctively presupp. The WTS presupp I was given would have denied that morality known by nature, without Christian presuppositions, could serve as a stepping stone or common ground. I think everything the presupp wants on that front is provided by natural law and common philosophy, prior to introducing the doctrines of the Christian faith.
@@NaturalTheologian Yes, but the way that the presuppositionalist construes it is to say that unbelievers: i. Know intelligible things about morality, reason, logic, language, and such like; ii. And (i) is possible because they're tacitly committed to Christian-theism, even if they're unaware of it. So for the presuppositionalist, (i) is common ground between the believer and unbeliever because we both live in God's world and the unbeliever cannot escape knowing God. The presuppositionalist project, as they see it, is to expose this hidden reliance on God. The reason I'm not a presuppositionalist is because, whether or not (ii) is true in a theological sense, it can't be reasonably demonstrated to the unbeliever. For the unbeliever, it's just a claim without proof. There are issues to do with Fristianity, Stroud, and epistemic certainty. So this makes presuppositionalism an ineffective apologetic.
@@chrismathew2295 Exactly. My question is, between (i) and (ii), which is prior in the order of being? Obviously (ii). But which is prior in the order of knowing? I would say (i). Meanwhile, the presupp tries to say that really, deep down, people know (i) logically prior to knowing (ii). I think we can argue that (i) metaphysically depends on (ii), but not epistemically. In fact, the apprehended truth of (i) provides reason to believe (ii). That means that (i) is in fact prior in the order of knowing. You're getting at the same thing in saying that (ii) cannot be reasonably demonstrated to the unbeliever. The effectiveness of the apologetic has to do with the order of knowing. And the order of knowing is the reverse of the order of being.
@@NaturalTheologian I could say more (eg., I'm not sure the distinction between being and knowledge is relevant here, since claim [ii] is already about what the unbeliever is epistemically committed to), but I think it's best to leave it here. Looking forward to seeing what else you produce. God bless!
I was never taught that there is no common ground. So i did agree with everything you just said as a presup. I was taught by calvinist even thou i am not one. I reach out to all Crhistians to learn. Just like I enjoy reading St. Thomas Aquinas even thou i am not a trinitarian. At the end of the day we are Christians.
11:09 _"I just think his evolutionary explanations of it fall short there's more to this world than that in order to explain morality"_ You mean culture ?
@@MrGustavier Culture would be one thing, though I’m perfectly open to biological explanations of culture. But evolution, I would argue, is insufficient to explanation the objectivity or truth of our moral evaluations.
@@NaturalTheologian *-"But evolution, I would argue, is insufficient to explanation the objectivity or truth of our moral evaluations."* I see. Well, there are naturalistic theories of moral realism which don't leverage evolution (see : moral naturalism). Notice also that a moral theory (a meta-ethical theory) can account for *"the truth of our moral evaluations"* without being a realist theory. Because, for example, what "makes true" a moral evaluation can be the preferences or values of an individual, that would be a version of moral subjectivism (and therefore not *"objectivism"),* but it would account indeed for *"the truth of our moral evaluations".*
you can distill mores from multiple sources and the main precepts are familiar to anyone for a reason. I'd argue these come from instinct and learned behaviour
Presups don’t say there is no common ground. Actually Every fact is common ground to the presup. What the presup is saying is that there is no neutral ground. I think John Frame explains this best.
Hm, I believe neutral refers to worldview-neutral. That would be common ground between believers and unbelievers that can serve as a basis for argument, and provide a reason for one worldview or another. The denial of worldview-neutral evidence is the denial of common ground.
10:48 _"but he's also a moral realist he really does believe in Morality do I want him to be consistent with his atheism and be more amoral and nihilistic"_ Screen caption at that time stamp : _"moral realism : there is moral truth"_ This seems inaccurate. Moral realism isn't the position that _"there is moral truth",_ this seems to describe more the metaethical theory called _"moral cognitivism",_ which defends that 1st order moral claims are propositional, meaning they have a truth value (they can be true or false). Moral realism also isn't the position that one "really believes in morality"... Moral realism is the position according to which 1st order moral claims are stance independently true, that is to say, they are true independently of anyone's predispositions, goals or desires, or any cultural standard or attitude. It is the view that there are stance-independent moral facts. That is, facts that are not made true by the values or preferences of individuals or groups. Notice that the opposite of that isn't _"nihilism"._ The opposite of that would be "moral anti-realism". If by _"nihilism"_ you mean the position according to which morality doesn't exist, then that is a very different view from moral anti-realism. If by _"nihilism"_ you mean the position according to which 1st order moral claims are all false, then that would be closer to the metaethical theory called "error theory", and that would be a subcategory inside moral anti-realism. Furthermore, none of that is determined by the theism/atheism distinction... A theist can be a moral anti-realist, or a realist, and so can the atheist...
@@MrGustavier Thanks for the reminders - I meant stance-independence. I don’t know what my or my professor’s view is of cognitivism. One of my points is that Christian presuppositionalism lacks the patience to make these distinctions. It’s Biblical morality or nihilism. I would hope to have the patience, so I stand corrected.
@@NaturalTheologian *-"One of my points is that Christian presuppositionalism lacks the patience to make these distinctions. It’s Biblical morality or nihilism."* Really ?! ... Waw... Well, that explains why they are completely irrelevant in the broader philosophical discussion, and why they are completely incapable of convincing anyone...
Is there an easy way to recognize truth? Is there an easy way to show something is untrue? Is it possible to have consistent beliefs about things that are untrue? Is this why there are vast schisms within all religions and god beliefs? Today let's focus on the schisms that exist in Christianity! From Catholics, to Protestants to Calvinists to Mormons...Christian beliefs are all over the map. What if the Calvinist's have it right...God has already chosen who will be saved and who will be condemned to hell so none of it matters anyway:). That is also why you had Christian's who supported Hitler and why you have Christians who support Trump now and you had and have Christians who believe both these men are abhorrently evil. You have Christians who vote to force raped little girls to give birth, vote for never ending gun violence, vote for inaction on climate change and health care costs and tax breaks for billionaires and you have Christians who vote exactly the opposite. Because in the end Christians are just flawed human beings who are good, evil and in between just like all other human beings. Now Christian's apologists will attempt to divert these oberservations by claiming it is because of "sin". But why would those who believe in christ do evil things and those who don't believe in him do good works? Why does it take the lie of Christ or Muhammad or Joseph Smith to make people who would fall naturally on the good and peaceful side of society do evil? Why do 99% of people know that Earth is a globe? Because truth leads to consistent belief something that Christianity fails at completely!
@@royhiggins7270 i find relative consistency on what CS Lewis called “mere Christianity.” The differences are much less material - but I wish more Christian’s recognized that. They too often show just the kind of divisiveness you describe. Thanks for sharing your perspective.
@NaturalTheologian When it comes to the ultimate question the only correct answer would be 100 percent consistency. Since that isn't the case and since Christians have destroyed America I will continue to fight the evil the lie of christ creates on a daily basis.
Wow. TIL Presuppusitionalism is a thing...
Oh my word. I am so sorry you had to spend so many years under that. I guess I was in a similar box, but never that formalised.
This explains so much...
Many seem to be hyper-Biblicists from 2 Timothy 3:16-17 and act as though there is no rational thought that can come apart from Scripture, but clearly God speaks through more than just the Bible. Solo Scriptura vs Sola Scriptura. What I realized is many of my teachers never read much of anything prior to the Reformation and ironically interpret the Bible through their own modern liberal lens. I went decades before I even knew who King Alfred was and looking back that's pathetic.
That’s right, we need knowledge from outside the Bible!
I'm not a presuppositionalist for many reasons, but I don't actually see how your argument defeats presuppositionalism. A lot of presuppositionalists argue that there is common ground - eg., on morality - that emerges from their implicit belief in Christianity (cf. Romans 1). And therefore, we can use people's moral convictions as the stepping stone towards Christianity. Nihilism is mentioned only as a reductio ad absurdum of the sceptic's foundational commitments, not as something the sceptic should seriously consider.
The second part of the video regarding Christian humanism and empiricism is more on-track, I think. That seems to reflect a basic epistemological disagreement between the natural theologian and the Van Tilian.
This is a slick and well-produced video, though! Also a philosophy graduate here ;)
Thanks! And thanks for the careful analysis.
*I* don’t actually see how the first set of claims are distinctively presupp. The WTS presupp I was given would have denied that morality known by nature, without Christian presuppositions, could serve as a stepping stone or common ground. I think everything the presupp wants on that front is provided by natural law and common philosophy, prior to introducing the doctrines of the Christian faith.
@@NaturalTheologian Yes, but the way that the presuppositionalist construes it is to say that unbelievers:
i. Know intelligible things about morality, reason, logic, language, and such like;
ii. And (i) is possible because they're tacitly committed to Christian-theism, even if they're unaware of it.
So for the presuppositionalist, (i) is common ground between the believer and unbeliever because we both live in God's world and the unbeliever cannot escape knowing God. The presuppositionalist project, as they see it, is to expose this hidden reliance on God.
The reason I'm not a presuppositionalist is because, whether or not (ii) is true in a theological sense, it can't be reasonably demonstrated to the unbeliever. For the unbeliever, it's just a claim without proof. There are issues to do with Fristianity, Stroud, and epistemic certainty. So this makes presuppositionalism an ineffective apologetic.
@@chrismathew2295 Exactly. My question is, between (i) and (ii), which is prior in the order of being? Obviously (ii). But which is prior in the order of knowing? I would say (i).
Meanwhile, the presupp tries to say that really, deep down, people know (i) logically prior to knowing (ii). I think we can argue that (i) metaphysically depends on (ii), but not epistemically. In fact, the apprehended truth of (i) provides reason to believe (ii). That means that (i) is in fact prior in the order of knowing.
You're getting at the same thing in saying that (ii) cannot be reasonably demonstrated to the unbeliever. The effectiveness of the apologetic has to do with the order of knowing. And the order of knowing is the reverse of the order of being.
@@NaturalTheologian I could say more (eg., I'm not sure the distinction between being and knowledge is relevant here, since claim [ii] is already about what the unbeliever is epistemically committed to), but I think it's best to leave it here. Looking forward to seeing what else you produce. God bless!
Very true! Thank you!
I was never taught that there is no common ground. So i did agree with everything you just said as a presup. I was taught by calvinist even thou i am not one. I reach out to all Crhistians to learn. Just like I enjoy reading St. Thomas Aquinas even thou i am not a trinitarian. At the end of the day we are Christians.
@@christianmonarchist3393 Nice - interesting smattering of views. That’s common ground.
11:09 _"I just think his evolutionary explanations of it fall short there's more to this world than that in order to explain morality"_
You mean culture ?
@@MrGustavier Culture would be one thing, though I’m perfectly open to biological explanations of culture. But evolution, I would argue, is insufficient to explanation the objectivity or truth of our moral evaluations.
@@NaturalTheologian *-"But evolution, I would argue, is insufficient to explanation the objectivity or truth of our moral evaluations."*
I see. Well, there are naturalistic theories of moral realism which don't leverage evolution (see : moral naturalism).
Notice also that a moral theory (a meta-ethical theory) can account for *"the truth of our moral evaluations"* without being a realist theory. Because, for example, what "makes true" a moral evaluation can be the preferences or values of an individual, that would be a version of moral subjectivism (and therefore not *"objectivism"),* but it would account indeed for *"the truth of our moral evaluations".*
Congratulations, presupositionalism is an empty, unfounded assertion. With no evidence.
Unfounded is the name of the game!
you can distill mores from multiple sources and the main precepts are familiar to anyone for a reason. I'd argue these come from instinct and learned behaviour
Presups don’t say there is no common ground. Actually Every fact is common ground to the presup. What the presup is saying is that there is no neutral ground. I think John Frame explains this best.
Hm, I believe neutral refers to worldview-neutral. That would be common ground between believers and unbelievers that can serve as a basis for argument, and provide a reason for one worldview or another. The denial of worldview-neutral evidence is the denial of common ground.
Voice louder music quieter you are saying interesting things and I can’t hear it over your background music
@@ThinkingPreacher-ex8jg Thanks for the tip. Still looking for the perfect balance
10:48 _"but he's also a moral realist he really does believe in Morality do I want him to be consistent with his atheism and be more amoral and nihilistic"_
Screen caption at that time stamp : _"moral realism : there is moral truth"_
This seems inaccurate. Moral realism isn't the position that _"there is moral truth",_ this seems to describe more the metaethical theory called _"moral cognitivism",_ which defends that 1st order moral claims are propositional, meaning they have a truth value (they can be true or false). Moral realism also isn't the position that one "really believes in morality"...
Moral realism is the position according to which 1st order moral claims are stance independently true, that is to say, they are true independently of anyone's predispositions, goals or desires, or any cultural standard or attitude. It is the view that there are stance-independent moral facts. That is, facts that are not made true by the values or preferences of individuals or groups.
Notice that the opposite of that isn't _"nihilism"._ The opposite of that would be "moral anti-realism". If by _"nihilism"_ you mean the position according to which morality doesn't exist, then that is a very different view from moral anti-realism. If by _"nihilism"_ you mean the position according to which 1st order moral claims are all false, then that would be closer to the metaethical theory called "error theory", and that would be a subcategory inside moral anti-realism.
Furthermore, none of that is determined by the theism/atheism distinction... A theist can be a moral anti-realist, or a realist, and so can the atheist...
@@MrGustavier Thanks for the reminders - I meant stance-independence. I don’t know what my or my professor’s view is of cognitivism.
One of my points is that Christian presuppositionalism lacks the patience to make these distinctions. It’s Biblical morality or nihilism.
I would hope to have the patience, so I stand corrected.
@@NaturalTheologian *-"One of my points is that Christian presuppositionalism lacks the patience to make these distinctions. It’s Biblical morality or nihilism."*
Really ?! ... Waw... Well, that explains why they are completely irrelevant in the broader philosophical discussion, and why they are completely incapable of convincing anyone...
Is there an easy way to recognize truth? Is there an easy way to show something is untrue? Is it possible to have consistent beliefs about things that are untrue? Is this why there are vast schisms within all religions and god beliefs? Today let's focus on the schisms that exist in Christianity!
From Catholics, to Protestants to Calvinists to Mormons...Christian beliefs are all over the map. What if the Calvinist's have it right...God has already chosen who will be saved and who will be condemned to hell so none of it matters anyway:). That is also why you had Christian's who supported Hitler and why you have Christians who support Trump now and you had and have Christians who believe both these men are abhorrently evil. You have Christians who vote to force raped little girls to give birth, vote for never ending gun violence, vote for inaction on climate change and health care costs and tax breaks for billionaires and you have Christians who vote exactly the opposite.
Because in the end Christians are just flawed human beings who are good, evil and in between just like all other human beings. Now Christian's apologists will attempt to divert these oberservations by claiming it is because of "sin". But why would those who believe in christ do evil things and those who don't believe in him do good works? Why does it take the lie of Christ or Muhammad or Joseph Smith to make people who would fall naturally on the good and peaceful side of society do evil?
Why do 99% of people know that Earth is a globe? Because truth leads to consistent belief something that Christianity fails at completely!
@@royhiggins7270 i find relative consistency on what CS Lewis called “mere Christianity.” The differences are much less material - but I wish more Christian’s recognized that. They too often show just the kind of divisiveness you describe. Thanks for sharing your perspective.
@NaturalTheologian When it comes to the ultimate question the only correct answer would be 100 percent consistency. Since that isn't the case and since Christians have destroyed America I will continue to fight the evil the lie of christ creates on a daily basis.