[responsivevoice_button]
There has been an effort by Cameron Bertuzzi to get guests(Dr. Josh Rasmussen and Dr. Richard Howe) on to refute Presuppositionalism. I suppose they are a good correction to the terrible internet caricature that pervades these conversations with a vocabulary that is comprehensively used when one states “By what standard?”. But I think reformed apologist isn’t reduced to that and that means we should look at their criticisms and clarify.
Here is how another commentator commenting on his definition of Van Til’s apologetic:
Howe starts off by defining the presuppositional approach as: “The assumption or the presupposition of God is the precondition of knowledge“. This is a strange/ambiguous way to put it and I’ve only ever heard it said this way from Howe himself. I would rather define it as “God is the precondition of knowledge (specifically the Christian God), and unless we fear Him / start with Him / presuppose Him in our thinking beforehand, we lose all knowledge”. This seems consistent with Proverbs 1:7 as quoted above.
https://www.apologeticscentral.co.za/post/richard-howe-s-refutation-of-presuppositional-apologetics
Just for clarity, if you are not familiar with the notion of a ‘presupposition’, then this would be the time to familiarize yourself with the idea.
A “presupposition” is an elementary assumption in one’s reasoning or in the process by which opinions are formed. … a “presupposition” is not just any assumption in an argument, but a personal commitment that is held at the most basic level of one’s network of beliefs. Presuppositions form a wide-ranging, foundational perspective (or starting point) in terms of which everything else is interpreted and evaluated. As such, presuppositions have the greatest authority in one’s thinking, being treated as one’s least negotiable beliefs and being granted the highest immunity to revision.
Well, I find the definition very strange. Is it referring to a specific individual’s presupposition in God is the precondition for intelligible experience or to the notion generically? I assume it would be the latter than the former. It wouldn’t make sense to say “Joe’s belief in God being the precondition in intelligibility” is itself the precondition for intelligibility. If Joe didn’t exist, then it would imply we would all lack a precondition for intelligible experience. So, it obviously refers to the principle. The principle seems to be that in order to have intelligible experience, one would have to have the presupposition that God is the precondition of intelligible experience. That couldn’t be his point either, for it seems plain enough that people that don’t presuppose God’s existence can and do have intelligible experience. Van Til, Bahnsen, and Frame also state that the unbeliever has knowledge. So, it must rather be the precondition for intelligibility is that one must have the presupposition that God is the precondition of experience to have a worldview that accounts for the intelligibility of experience. That does seem to be the principle that presuppositionalist is usually defending.
If that is the case, then he is the one that is inconsistent with regard to the issue. He maintains that reality’s intelligibility is dependant upon the Triune God of scripture. He also maintains that one can think autonomously to the Christian God and make sense of the world(even though that isn’t true according to Dr. Howe). Dr. Howe already stated the close relationship between epistemology and ontology.
Furthermore, we do disagree over whether God is the precondition for intelligibility. He merely thinks that it contingently is the precondition of intelligibility, but Presuppositionalists maintains that it is the necessary precondition of intelligibility. That Islam is equal in terms of explaining why we have intelligibility.
We use this phrase to talk about the preconditions of intelligibility. These things are the things necessary for rationality to be obtained in any worldview whatsoever. Furthermore, they lead to questions regarding the ultimate nature of reality. They give content to the ideas of logic, mathematics, possibility, necessity, etc. So, without presupposing such an account of these things, rationality would be impossible. If we possess a Christian worldview, then whatever the Christian worldview presents as the basis of these things would have to be presupposed for any rational enterprise to occur. I suppose that Christians think God is the solution and share relevance to these issues regarding the nature of reality, laws of logic, Modality, etc. Given that these things are dependent upon him(aseity) it seems to lead us to the necessity of presupposing God in conversations. If we don’t, then we simply aren’t being Christian in our thinking.
http://spirited-tech.com/COG/2019/12/24/classical-apologetics-stated-and-rejected/
Further Reads:
Apologetics Central:
An Unsound Refutation of Presuppositionalism
The Third Man Podcast:
The Domain for Truth:
Responses to Dr. Richard Howe’s Alleged Refutation of Presuppositional Apologetics
The Council 