Talk:Presuppositionalism

Guys and gals, this wiki is an island of rationality in the sea of crap that is the WWW but this article is terrible. Presuppositional apologetics is the opposite of what the second paragraph states it is. I threw out my presuppositional apologetics books many years ago when I abandoned Christianity but I do recall the rudiments. The central premise of presuppositionalists such as Van Til and Bahnsen is that a presupposition of God's existence is implicitly contained in all statements of moral value (i.e. "ought" statements), any arguments that make use of scientific laws and theories and IIRC any statements that rely on the classical laws of logic. The presuppositionalists (PS from now on)rhetorical strategy is to suggest that the denial of the existence of God is intrinsically logically incoherent and self-contradictory.

IIRC Bahnsen (who I think was in the tradition of Van Til) contends that God is the source of the following: (a) moral absolutes and notions of value; (b) regularity/uniformity in the natural world which makes inductive logic (and hence the scientific enterprise) possible; and (c) abstract universals which includes the laws of classical logic and other abstract universals such as numbers.

So in relation to (a), (b) and (c) the PSs rhetorical strategy was to argue that it is impossible to present an atheistic argument without reference to (a), (b) and/or (c) -- and this is a true premise, at the very least the atheist will uphold the value of truth (a value) and rely on the basic laws of logic. The PS then argues that since (a), (b) and (c) stem from God the atheist is implicitly appealing to the existence of God to mount an argument against God, i.e. he is presupposing the existence of God even in the process of denying the existence of God -- hence the name "presuppositionalist".

Even when I was a devout Christian -- having studied philosophy at university -- I recognised (a), (b) and (c) as referring to major areas of contention and uncertainty in philosophy, i.e. (a)-(c) refered to problems in philsophy. Consider (a) moral realism vs. moral relativism (b) the problem of induction (c) the foundations of Classical/Boolean logic.

It then occurred to me that Bahnsen's PS aims to exploit the problems of philosophy. The PSs God is a God of the Philosophical Gaps. I suggest someone try and obtain Bahnsen's book "Pushing the Antithesis" to aid in the authoring of this article. Hope this synopsis helps. TMarshmallow (talk) 07:20, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Completely backward
Unfortunately, the article to this point has presuppositionalism completely backward. Actually reading Van Til would be extremely helpful to your cause here. Presuppositionalism does not in any way say that Atheists are not allowed to have presuppositions and that magically Theists are, it instead says that we all have presuppositions and that these presuppositions require the existence of a Creator. A common analogy for this is akin to 'proving that we don't need air while breathing it.' In short, the presuppositional argument claims that the atheist cannot provide adequate grounds for why things like logic should exist at all or be considered trustworthy, yet they presume it anyway in their arguments. The presuppositionalist then says that they too also presume logic (so there is no special pleading, both the atheist and theist are shown to presume the same thing) but the theist then attempts to show that their metaphysical claim provides an abductive conclusion for why logic is there where atheism cannot.

In terms of the presumption of the Bible, there is once again no special pleading because the theist has simply given the falsifiable claim that the Bible is true and shows by historical and scientific methods why they believe this to be the case. The atheist has every opportunity to show that the Bible is false, but if the Biblical framework continues to show accurate predictions and prescriptions for life and science,the presuppositionalist has no reason to abandon his presumption. In a similar way, they can show why the framework of the atheistic worldview fails in some of these respects, and thus cannot stand to scrutiny in the way that the Biblical framework can, leading to the conclusion that the Bible, which claims Theism, is a superior hypothesis to atheism.

There is obviously plenty of room for rational debate on these issues as both sides are presented a perfectly fair opportunity to show why their own framework is superior.

(added to article space by 208.95.49.166 &mdash; moved to talk page by Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 15:57, 24 January 2014 (UTC))

Not a very good article
So I thought I'd find out a bit more about this subject and came to this article. Unfortunately it really tells me very little. On the other hand the two previous contributions on this talk page are quite informative.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 12:16, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Major Rewrites Needed
This wiki is mainly a strawman of presuppositionalism. Why on earth would we do that when they are already the lowest hanging fruit of Christianity. I've rewritten the first part and will probably do more later. I would recommend the following


 * Removal or complete rewrite of "Extension: transcendental argument for the existence of God." A rewrite should formally state what they say rather than making it an email forward quality representation of a debate that clearly never happened.
 * More information on the history of the school of thought and their argument (stated as they wrote them).
 * Links to debates and talks about the subject
 * As its own section the responses made by both the non-religious and Christians who don't buy into that garbage.

Again, we need to make this look professional or else we're just the other side of Conservapedia. 14:00, 15 June 2014


 * This is the rewrite that I reflexively rolled back, largely because it expunged the word "bullshit" from the lead. Other, wiser heads than mine can work with you to bring the article into a state of enhanced cromulence, and this talk page is the place to discuss that. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 21:30, 15 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Removing that word was very intentional and I make no apologies for it. We are "Rational" Wiki, not Urban Dictionary or /r/atheism. If you Google "Presuppositionalism" this is the second result, this means a lot of Christians probably visit this page looking for info. There is no need for language as it just makes us look less rational and like a bunch of kids (a stereotype a lot of Christians have of us). We risk turing off people who may have actually been coming for information. If this poor form of writing is what is expected here let me know so I can stop wasting my time. &mdash; Unsigned, by: 192.55.54.40 / talk / contribs

I give up, if you insist on this piece of shit article then I guess that's the way it is. I'm sorry I wasted my time trying to write accurate (or well articulated) content on the subject. You guys are truly the other side of Conservapedia.
 * Note well, RationalWiki is not Wikipedia, nor any kind of encyclopedia. Like the mythic denizens of Lake Wobegon, sumus quid sumus. It ought to have crossed your mind that coming in here proclaiming right off the bat what "we" need to do is arrogant and presumptuous. I recognize that your intentions may be the best, but saying the same kind of things a tone troll might say is no way to make your way smoothly into the local culture. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 01:08, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps it was, I did read the "about us" section but it was presumptuous of me to assume our means of getting there were the same. You have my attention, what end are you going for when keeping this current article? It is very poorly written and doesn't even correctly state what presupposition is. Reading above, I am far from the only one who dislikes the current content. At first you rolled back my change due to me removing the word "bullshit," but then when I further objected you removed it and called me a "tone troll." So what gives? What do I need to do differently to fit in here and get this content put in? C programmer (talk) 01:46, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Or how about this? Instead of outright calling it a bullshitting tactic in the header, we reserve that for a "criticisms" section. The text could go something like "many atheists see this as a bullshitting tactic used when the apologist can no longer defend their assertions using logic." I think that a more neutral description of the subject is best for the first part since it provides more precise information. But as you pointed out before, I do not seem to understand the goals here so I won't jump to a conclusion and say that it is best if you do this. C programmer (talk) 01:57, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Umm, have you read the header as it now stands? The word "bullshit" is conspicuous by its absence, yes?


 * I did read your comments about the "Form of the argument" section, and quite honestly, I prefer it the way it is. I consider its present form to be accessible to the audience RW reaches, and reaches well. I have been wrong about a lot of things, and maybe this is another such time, but I don't think so. If someone wants to read a grey, dry-as-dust formal statement of the argument, a better place to look might be Wikipedia. If you care to put such formal language on this very talk page, perhaps someone will see it and comment on how it might best be integrated into the article. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 02:24, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, since well formed (and perhaps accurate) writing isn't welcome here I'll leave after this post. It's not like I'm a great writer either, I'd expect anyone with a college education be be as good or better than myself (I'm an engineer). I had figured some highschooler wrote it and no one got around to writing anything accurate or articulate. I have to say that I am surprised as well as disappointed that RW encourages strawman arguments. I guess I expected too much... C programmer (talk) 03:00, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm in the middle on this one. The article as it stands isn't particularly informative for someone who is new to the topic. Worse yet, for those who are familiar with it, some of the errors it contains are fairly glaring. But on the flip-side, some of the dry ass suggestions that C prog is promoting would find a better home on another wiki. --Inquisitor (talk) 03:42, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Specific errors in this article
What are they? Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 04:00, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Van Til vs "Sye-clones"
As the OP of the talk page posted, there is a difference between how C. van Til (and Bahnsen) run presuppositional apologetics and how the bottom-feeders of the backwoods internet like Sye ten Bruggencate run it. I recommend very strongly that excerpts from van Til and/or Bahnsen be quoted in this article and that their actual arguments be specifically dealt with. There is enough variance between van Til and the Sye-clone camp that it's almost two separate species of argument.

This is a particularly important argument to defeat because, as has been stated, it is gaining popularity and momentum with an increasingly-desparate crowd of increasingly-polarized Christians. They are starting to use social media in earnest, and presup is so bizarre compared to most of the apologetics the typical counter-apologist encounters that he (or she in my case...) may not know how to deal with it. It sure caught me off guard the first time I read about it...

For whatever this is worth, I've spent hours every day for the last couple of years dealing with these people on Facebook. It's enough to make your brain squeak. -- Hazuki Azuma 01:48, 25 June 2014‎ (UTC)

Big Rewrite
I have attempted to rewrite the first half of the article to address the concerns raised by C Programmer and TMarshmallow, and to add some of what I've gleaned from my years of fighting with these Calvinist psychopaths online for several years. As I am not a philosopher by training, anyone who is better at this than I am can and should edit my rewrite, but please do not simply revert it for no reason; in particular, if you find something useful in it, please retain the useful bits in any future rewrites.

I believe it is very important that we are able to counter this apologetic, especially in light of how popular it's becoming online. This is one of the single most toxic meme complexes I have ever encountered in my entire life, not very far behind Calvinism itself... -- Hazuki Azuma 03:54, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

A recommendation to not engage with the clearly delusional
Hi, I was wondering about adding some advice somewhere, but wanted feedback first.

What got me thinking was reading the advice of a psychologist for how NASA should handle claims of a “reactionless drive” (see the section “Preparing Responses”).

One category of person who makes such claims, they said, showed signs of being delusional or paranoid. The recommendation was to simply not respond because "a technical response will not provide the submitter with the kind of help they need and will only encourage more unproductive correspondence". (of course, the genuinely curious can actually be educated)

Now, the context there was that they randomly receive emails or something from these people, which isn’t always how it goes with presups.

However, I think for the Sye brand of apologetics that focuses on knowledge, if responding can’t be avoided, it might be advisable to just point out that any mind can hold certainty of experiencing something at the current moment, and that denying this is delusional.

Of course their particular delusion will compel them to argue over this. But there is no argument to be had. It may be best to simply recommend they get therapeutic or medical help, and leave it at that, full stop.

I actually think this may be the best way to handle such a delusion. Getting lost in all the details feeds them, and sets up their smokescreen for them, taking focus away from the simple undeniable truth. Brianpansky (talk) 15:07, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Believing and vigorously defending falsehoods does not make one "delusional" in any medical sense. Get over yourself. Nutty Roux (talk) 18:09, 14 September 2014 (UTC)


 * "Believing and vigorously defending falsehoods does not make one "delusional" in any medical sense" indeed, and I haven't and wouldn't propose such a broad definition. *deep sigh*  Brianpansky (talk) 18:45, 14 September 2014 (UTC)


 * If it wasn't clear, the specific criteria I employed to regard someone as delusional was where I said "denying this is delusional". Brianpansky (talk) 18:53, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok. I'm not going to argue with you over parsing what you wrote in the next sentence. There's no point in "debating" a presuppositionalist except to let them make a record of their vicious hatefulness and the circularity of their arguments. They've built a logically sound argument based on a false premise that's completely justifiable to them according to a tortured web of unjustifiable beliefs grounding out their god claims. You just don't accept their basic and usually unstated premises. As I said, them being delusional for believing any falsehoods about that, or as you move the target a little, believing falsehoods about your claim that they're delusional for denying they're delusional, is nonsense. Have fun. Nutty Roux (talk) 19:56, 14 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I can't totally make out what you are trying to say. Now it seems maybe you think my criteria for saying they are delusional is that they deny they are delusional?  No.  It was their denial of the certainty that there are present experiences.  This is also the thing in the next sentence that I say they will deny.  Perhaps your continued misunderstanding is why you claim I “moved the target” in some way.


 * I hope you don’t return here to commit more of your bizarre train wreck. You aren’t helping.  Brianpansky (talk) 22:17, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not helping? You're basically incoherent, and you appear to also be so arrogant that you can't admit you said something exceptionally stupid.
 * Since you want to be a prick about it, I'll let you read back what you wrote and you can explain to me how big a bizarre train wreck I'm "committing".
 * "Of course their particular delusion will compel them to argue over this. But there is no argument to be had. It may be best to simply recommend they get therapeutic or medical help, and leave it at that, full stop."
 * What do these words mean? Nutty Roux (talk) 23:58, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I guess the particular kind of delusion I mention here is not the kind helped by medication. Perhaps it can be helped by therapy. Or perhaps it is some kind of "intellectual delusion" that is not helped by either. This was, of course, untrained speculation on my part. Brianpansky (talk) 23:44, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * That's because, while it's a pretty ridiculous position, presuppositionalism on its own doesn't entail any real delusion. You've got a philosophical disagreement over a philosophical question. Congratulations. You're a very big deal. Nutty Roux (talk) 23:58, 14 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The specific thing I labeled delusional (hint: not just any old thing that calls itself presuppositionalism) seems to fit the criteria for delusion. You could have argued that it doesn't.  And I even asked for feedback, hoping for helpful response.  But instead you're wasting my time.  Brianpansky (talk) 00:59, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Haw! You almost got me there. For a moment I was thinking "nobody can be this arrogant about being so incoherent" and then I snapped back to reality. Good show. Good show. Nutty Roux (talk) 05:18, 15 September 2014 (UTC)