Presuppositional Apologetics

Van Tillian presuppositional apologetics were looked down upon and dismissed by every Christian professor I had when in seminary. This, by itself, says something. So I never paid that much attention to it. I'll make some comments about it before too long though, but I don't know when as of yet.

Suffice it to say that a Muslim could make much of the same presuppositional case on behalf of Islam. The fact that no Muslim does this doesn't mean that a Muslim couldn't do this, because he could. But if a Muslim did offer a presuppositional apologetic, there would be no way to know whether the Muslim or the Van Tillian is right, since there is no common ground, except for the rules of logic and reasoning, which both sides would claim support their religious viewpoint. These two views would be considered "incommensurable" with each other. Even though both views couldn't be right, they could both be wrong.

Speaking of presuppositional apologetics, see what Victor Reppert said about a debate in this link:

"What happened here? I read this debate and thought that Wilson was exposed as someone who, in the last analysis, had no arguments whatsoever." --Reppert.

7 comments:

Paul Manata said...

In Reformed Seminaries classical and evidentail apologetics are looked down upon, that says something, right???

C'mon, John.

Anyway, a Muslim could try to make the argument, and I would hope that he would. But making the argument doesn't mean that it'll fly. So, we must subject each worldview to an internal critique, like I did here:

http://presstheantithesis.blogspot.com/2005/05/brief-presuppositional-analysis-of.html

anyway, you obviously don't know much about our aologetic method. I'm warning you, out of love, that you need to put much more study into this issue before you embarrass yourself. I guarantee that you'll come off looking like a hack.

Zachary Moore said...

An excellent point, John. I've interacted with Muslims who engage in the same flexibility of "translation" in regards to the Quran as Christians do in regards to their scriptures. I've pointed out contradictions to Muslims who insist that my Arabic isn't sufficiently nuanced to understand the "true" meaning of the passage, or that even though in one sense of the word a contradiction is implied, in another sense it is avoided. Christians do the same thing when confronted with the errors in their scriptures. I personally find it very amusing that presuppositionalism, although wielded as an unstoppable force by one superstition against another, is decidedly double-edged.

Steven Carr said...

Paul , in his link, claims that contradictions prove a book is not the Word of God.

How many contradictions are there in the Bible? :-)

And Paul, while continually complaining about the supposed ignorance of atheists, comes up with the following in his link :-

'We are told that "Marium," not "Mary" was the Mother of Jesus.


Oh, the sweet irony of somebody who claims that we have to put in much more study to avoid embarrasinbg ourselves and then writes that.....

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09753a.htm

Paul has a long way to go before he manages to reach the status of 'hack'

Paul Manata said...

Carr wants more embarrassment, fine.


SC: Paul , in his link, claims that contradictions prove a book is not the Word of God.

PM: Internal contradictions are a different kind. Gte them straight.

SC: How many contradictions are there in the Bible? :-)

PM: None. Oh, btw, how are laws of logic possible given your worldview. You need them to speak of contradictions. So, my question is logically prior to yours.

SC: And Paul, while continually complaining about the supposed ignorance of atheists, comes up with the following in his link :-

'We are told that "Marium," not "Mary" was the Mother of Jesus.


Oh, the sweet irony of somebody who claims that we have to put in much more study to avoid embarrasinbg ourselves and then writes that.....

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09753a.htm


PM: How embarrassing for you. You see, in Sura 19 we are told that Marium was the sister of AARON! You goof. Now, MariAm was the sister of Aaron in the OT and Mohommend, being in an oral culture, could easily have mixed a word. At any rate, May (mother of Jesus) did not have a brother named AARON, Mariam in the OT did.

19.27] And she came to her people with him, carrying him (with her). They said: O Marium! surely you have done a strange thing.
[19.28] O sister of Haroun! your father was not a bad man, nor, was your mother an unchaste woman.
[19.29] But she pointed to him. They said: How should we speak to one who was a child in the cradle?
[19.30] He said: Surely I am a servant of Allah; He has given me the Book and made me a prophet;
[19.31] And He has made me blessed wherever I may be, and He has enjoined on me prayer and poor-rate so long as I live;
[19.32] And dutiful to my mother, and He has not made me insolent, unblessed;
[19.33] And peace on me on the day I was born, and on the day I die, and on the day I am raised to life.
[19.34] Such is Isa, son of Marium; (this is) the saying of truth about which they dispute.

SC: Paul has a long way to go before he manages to reach the status of 'hack'


PM: Sorry buddy, you're looking pretty foolsih now. Anyway,. come back when you got something, mmmkay?

Why does it get easier and easier to make atheists look foolish?


See, Steven, I can play the ass card just like you. So, let me know when you're ready to have a rational discussion, mmkay?

Steven Carr said...

I knew that Muhammad confused the two Marys/Miriams, just as you did when you wrote that the mother of Jesus was called Mary, and was not called Mariam.

I quote your words :- ' We are told that "Marium," not "Mary" was the Mother of Jesus.'

Marium is just another version of the name Mary.

Basically , you wrote 'We are told that "Mary," not "Mary" was the Mother of Jesus.'


And how do you know the Mary, mother of Jesus, did not have a brother called Aaron? Do you really expect the Bible to list all of the names of her brothers?

See how easy it is to disprove a contradiction! I didn't even have to stretch for that. That was easy.

And who were the 12 disciples?

Did they include 'Thaddeus' or 'Lebbaeus', or a 'Jude'?

A 'Levi' or a 'Matthew'?


If we apply the same rules to the Bible that you apply to the Koran, we come up with contradictions.

Paul Manata said...

Carr confuses sense and referent! Sheesh, go back and read Frege 101.

Just because the word is the same does not mean that the *meaning* poured into Marium is the same, get it, got it, good?

So, I expected people to be aware of that basic distinction.

Anyway, Marium was also said to be the daughter of Imram (the same Amram of Exodus 6:20?).

SC: And how do you know the Mary, mother of Jesus, did not have a brother called Aaron?

PM: argumentum ad ignorantium Anyway, I think I have made some good inductive argument ssupporting my position when all you've done is to play the skeptic, offering nothing.

SC: If we apply the same rules to the Bible that you apply to the Koran, we come up with contradictions.


PM: Only if we ignorantly confuse sense and referrent as well as other relavent details.

Come back when ya got soemthing, mmkay?

Steven Carr said...

Paul concedes that the words Mary and Miriam are the same. One is just a different version of the other.

I shall be charitable and assume that when Paul wrote that the Koran was wrong to say Miriam was the mother of Jesus, when it was actually Miriam who was the mother of Jesus, he was guilty of no more than forgetting to explain to his readers who this second Mary/Marium actually was.


But his posting does show how he applies different standards when critiquing his own world view than when he critiques other world views.

He dare not defend the namimg of the 12 disciples without at once conceding that his attack on the namimg of the Mary's in the Koran could also be used against him.

Matthew/Levi is a far bigger change than Marium/Mary.....