Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Underlying Presuppositions

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Underlying Presuppositions

    In a recent (extended) discussion with Seer, the issue of presuppositions/assumptions came up. The suggestion was made that we have differing presuppositions, making it difficult (impossible?) for a discussion between worldviews. That has had me thinking a bit. So I thought I would toss the question out there. If you had to identify the core presuppositions underlying your worldview, what would you put on the list. These are the things you start with as assumptions - not the things you conclude.

    I have several things on my list:
    1. The laws of logic and mathematics are immutable, universal, and eternal.
    2. The universe is intelligible - it operates according to principles that can be codified and understood.
    3. I have the ability to use my five senses to (imperfectly) collect information about the reality of the universe.
    4. I have the (imperfect) capacity to reason and process that information to arrive at conclusions.
    5. Because my sensing and reasoning is imperfect, I should check my reasoning against that of others as much and as often as possible. That will help me to find flaws in my reasoning.
    6. Because of 3) and 4), it is never possible to be 100% certain about any conclusion.
    7. I should never add something to an explanation that is not strictly necessary to arrive at the conclusion (Occam's Razor)


    Sitting here, writing quickly, that's my initial list. Does yours add or exclude anything? I would like to see if the various worldviews can find a common starting point we all agree on that makes it possible to communicate more easily.
    The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

    I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

  • #2
    Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
    In a recent (extended) discussion with Seer, the issue of presuppositions/assumptions came up. The suggestion was made that we have differing presuppositions, making it difficult (impossible?) for a discussion between worldviews. That has had me thinking a bit. So I thought I would toss the question out there. If you had to identify the core presuppositions underlying your worldview, what would you put on the list. These are the things you start with as assumptions - not the things you conclude.

    I have several things on my list:
    1. The laws of logic and mathematics are immutable, universal, and eternal.
    2. The universe is intelligible - it operates according to principles that can be codified and understood.
    3. I have the ability to use my five senses to (imperfectly) collect information about the reality of the universe.
    4. I have the (imperfect) capacity to reason and process that information to arrive at conclusions.
    5. Because my sensing and reasoning is imperfect, I should check my reasoning against that of others as much and as often as possible. That will help me to find flaws in my reasoning.
    6. Because of 3) and 4), it is never possible to be 100% certain about any conclusion.
    7. I should never add something to an explanation that is not strictly necessary to arrive at the conclusion (Occam's Razor)


    Sitting here, writing quickly, that's my initial list. Does yours add or exclude anything? I would like to see if the various worldviews can find a common starting point we all agree on that makes it possible to communicate more easily.
    I will agree with 2 through 7, but #1 needs more clarification, and I cannot accept it as worded. I consider the Laws of logic and math to be human constructs from human intellect and rational relationships. Math evolved as part of our tool box and is valid as long as it is usefully descriptive, as in science, and every day life since the first pre-humans began counting things.
    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
      The laws of logic and mathematics are immutable, universal, and eternal.
      I would weaken this slightly to granting the possibility that these may have come into existence some time 'prior' to our universe and thus that there may exist a point beyond which we cannot reason.

      The universe is intelligible - it operates according to principles that can be codified and understood.
      I would also weaken this one to say that using my intelligence is how I understand things and how our human society does so, and thus how we have learned much about the universe and how it appears to work. (Thus backing away from the assertion that the universe in its entirety necessarily works in this way)

      I should never add something to an explanation that is not strictly necessary to arrive at the conclusion (Occam's Razor)
      I can't put my finger on why, but I don't like this phrasing of it, but I agree with the general gist of it.

      Does yours add or exclude anything?
      8) I exist (I directly experience my own existence, ergo I exist).
      9) Qualia / subjective conscious experience exists.
      10) The past is/was real and my memory is at least a somewhat reliable guide to it - i.e. for pragmatism's sake and for the sake of not going bonkers I choose to assume that the past indeed exists and that I wasn't spontaneously created a second ago with fake memories of the past put into my head.
      11) That the world I perceive around me and the people I interact with are at least somewhat real (and thus worth interacting with, as opposed to say, ignoring).
      "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
      "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
      "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
        I will agree with 2 through 7, but #1 needs more clarification, and I cannot accept it as worded. I consider the Laws of logic and math to be human constructs from human intellect and rational relationships. Math evolved as part of our tool box and is valid as long as it is usefully descriptive, as in science, and every day life since the first pre-humans began counting things.
        What I mean by #1 is that the laws of mathematics are dependent on a sentient mine to be articulated, but they reflect an objective reality that is not. These foundational laws (e.g., law of identity, etc.) are a priori true without a need for proof and have always and every been so (in this universe, anyway). In other words, if someone proposes that "2 is not equal to 2" is a true statement, I will question their sanity, not the mathematical proposition. Same with the basic laws of logic. Indeed, my mind cannot grasp a hypothetical universe in which they are NOT true.

        I explicitly did NOT include the so-called "laws of nature." Some of them we do NOT know are universal, and we do not know if there are other possible universes in which they do not apply.
        The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

        I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
          In a recent (extended) discussion with Seer, the issue of presuppositions/assumptions came up. The suggestion was made that we have differing presuppositions, making it difficult (impossible?) for a discussion between worldviews. That has had me thinking a bit. So I thought I would toss the question out there. If you had to identify the core presuppositions underlying your worldview, what would you put on the list. These are the things you start with as assumptions - not the things you conclude.

          I have several things on my list:
          1. The laws of logic and mathematics are immutable, universal, and eternal.
          2. The universe is intelligible - it operates according to principles that can be codified and understood.
          3. I have the ability to use my five senses to (imperfectly) collect information about the reality of the universe.
          4. I have the (imperfect) capacity to reason and process that information to arrive at conclusions.
          5. Because my sensing and reasoning is imperfect, I should check my reasoning against that of others as much and as often as possible. That will help me to find flaws in my reasoning.
          6. Because of 3) and 4), it is never possible to be 100% certain about any conclusion.
          7. I should never add something to an explanation that is not strictly necessary to arrive at the conclusion (Occam's Razor)


          Sitting here, writing quickly, that's my initial list. Does yours add or exclude anything? I would like to see if the various worldviews can find a common starting point we all agree on that makes it possible to communicate more easily.
          Yes, the presupposition that the God of Scripture exists and gives the best explanation for why all your assumptions work and are possible.

          https://www.monergism.com/topics/apo...al-apologetics
          https://www.monergism.com/topics/apo...ental-argument
          Last edited by seer; 02-08-2018, 08:14 AM.
          Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by seer View Post
            Yes, the presupposition that the God of Scripture exists and gives the best explanation for why all your assumptions work and are possible.

            https://www.monergism.com/topics/apo...al-apologetics
            https://www.monergism.com/topics/apo...ental-argument
            Wow. THAT explains a great deal. If you start with this as a presupposition, rather than arriving at it as a conclusion, then it is essentially immune to examination and discussion with someone like me is essentially impossible. I wish I had known that earlier. We could have saved a lot of time. No WONDER you kept thinking I was asking you to examine things from the perspective of my worldview.
            The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

            I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

            Comment


            • #7
              1. The laws of logic and mathematics are immutable, universal, and eternal.
              There is a more fundament presupposition to those - Existence itself. Which is presumed with them that those concepts are.

              Yes, the presupposition that the God of Scripture exists and gives the best explanation for why all your assumptions work and are possible.
              This presupposition typically presumes "God exists." But I will ask, do to the traditional arguments for God, why does existence need God? All the traditional arguments for God argue for God's existence, existence is presumed.

              So the problem is existence does not need God, God needs existence.

              The concept of 1 + 1 = 2 is a matter of existence. Why does item 1. need God to be true?

              To answer the question and to make arguments we need item 1. of the list.
              . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

              . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

              Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                Wow. THAT explains a great deal. If you start with this as a presupposition, rather than arriving at it as a conclusion, then it is essentially immune to examination and discussion with someone like me is essentially impossible. I wish I had known that earlier. We could have saved a lot of time. No WONDER you kept thinking I was asking you to examine things from the perspective of my worldview.
                Carp, you do realize that presuppositions are accepted and not proven. And I'm not sure why we couldn't discuss things. For instance your claim that laws of logic and mathematics are immutable, universal, and eternal. You can not prove that, it is accepted at face value. And to me, a rational, logical Creator who is immutable, universal, and eternal best explains these truths.
                Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                  What I mean by #1 is that the laws of mathematics are dependent on a sentient mine to be articulated, but they reflect an objective reality that is not. These foundational laws (e.g., law of identity, etc.) are a priori true without a need for proof and have always and every been so (in this universe, anyway). In other words, if someone proposes that "2 is not equal to 2" is a true statement, I will question their sanity, not the mathematical proposition. Same with the basic laws of logic. Indeed, my mind cannot grasp a hypothetical universe in which they are NOT true.

                  I explicitly did NOT include the so-called "laws of nature." Some of them we do NOT know are universal, and we do not know if there are other possible universes in which they do not apply.
                  Thank you for your clarification. We are on the same page, but with some differences. I am uncomfortable dealing with absolutes as you described them. Some Laws of Logic and identity are relatively certain, and parallel the nature of our physical reality, but do not represent absolutes. I could potentially envision a universe in which ALL may not be true.
                  Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                  Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                  But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                  go with the flow the river knows . . .

                  Frank

                  I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    My presupposition is that I am right and everyone else is wrong.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by seer View Post
                      Yes, the presupposition that the God of Scripture exists and gives the best explanation for why all your assumptions work and are possible.

                      https://www.monergism.com/topics/apo...al-apologetics
                      https://www.monergism.com/topics/apo...ental-argument
                      Actually the argument being made by Presuppositional Apologetics is much stronger than it being merely a 'best explanation'. In order for this sort of transcendental argumentation to work out, only the theistic worldview can make the world intelligible. The believer, starting from the viewpoint of theism, challenges the unbeliever to make sense of the world. To account for facts and his way of thinking. This is best done with specific arguments that show that the unbeliever, if consistent, would have to deny that he can know anything, not even with any probability.

                      You could for instance show carpedm9587 the argument from Evolution against Naturalism from Plantinga, as an example, and challenge him on intelligibility of the world given his presuppositions. That would be an example of this kind of argumentation.

                      Presuppositional apologetics in the style of Cornelius Van Till, tend to go further and argue that only the Christian worldview can make the world intelligible. And some pressuppotionalists go even further and argue that only the "Westminster Confession of Faith" (as Gordon Clark held it) can make the world intelligible. And in fact further attacks any other sort of apologetical method as heretical or sinful. Going that far I think is over the top.

                      I believe God's existence can be demonstrated with certainty. However I don't think Christ's resurrection, or the mystery of salvation can be demonstrated in any similar fashion. Arguments can be made to their reasonableness in the tradition of the Thomists, but you cannot have deductive certainty in Christianity. You can only engage with it, and come to Faith which is received as a free gift.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                        Wow. THAT explains a great deal. If you start with this as a presupposition, rather than arriving at it as a conclusion, then it is essentially immune to examination and discussion with someone like me is essentially impossible. I wish I had known that earlier. We could have saved a lot of time. No WONDER you kept thinking I was asking you to examine things from the perspective of my worldview.
                        The fact that you arrive at your faith as a result of evaluation does not preclude adding it to the list of presuppositions. I did not come to faith in Christ until I was in my early thirties so it could not have been a presupposition prior to that time. My trust in the rest of your list of presuppositions did not come full blown when I was born, I had to learn them as well as my faith. The fact that you fail to see this, and your response make me question your ability to reason.
                        Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                          My presupposition is that I am right and everyone else is wrong.
                          True as long as you agree with me.
                          Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            That and Cornelius Van Till and Greg Bahnsen, and the heirs of that kind of apologetics, hold various beliefs about human nature consistent with their Calvinistic views that I reject. For instance they argue it is completely impossible for an unbeliever to rationally accept their arguments, due to the "total depravity" of the unregenerate persons soul. That I think would be the biggest departure for me with their philosophy, but there is a core to the transcendental style of argumentation they use that one can extract.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by seer View Post
                              Carp, you do realize that presuppositions are accepted and not proven.
                              Yes - they are. They are foundation

                              Originally posted by seer View Post
                              And I'm not sure why we couldn't discuss things. For instance your claim that laws of logic and mathematics are immutable, universal, and eternal. You can not prove that, it is accepted at face value. And to me, a rational, logical Creator who is immutable, universal, and eternal best explains these truths.
                              Seer, for me, the idea of god is a conclusion I reach looking at the available evidence. So provide me with the evidence, and I will look at it and come to a conclusion. That evidence has to fit within the framework of my assumptions.

                              For you, god IS one of those assumptions. Ergo, your belief in this being is not based on evidence - it is an unproven foundation on which the rest of what you believe rests (if "assumption" means to you what it does to me). Given that I require evidence for my beliefs about god, and you do not, there is no basis for discussion/debate. You will always come back to "but this is a given assumption of my worldview - you can't question it." For me, the existence of such a being is a conclusion, not an assumption, so I can (and do) question it. That means I may move from atheism to theism or the reverse as the evidence leads me. As far as I can tell, you are locked into theism and cannot consider other possibilities.

                              Or am I missing something?
                              The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                              I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
                              37 responses
                              129 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post whag
                              by whag
                               
                              Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                              21 responses
                              129 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                              Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                              80 responses
                              422 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post tabibito  
                              Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                              45 responses
                              303 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                              Working...
                              X