Presuppositional calamity

Presuppositional apologetics makes many claims. But some of the more humorous of these claims is made on carm.org. Specifically this article; http://carm.org/presuppositional-apologetics

Now CARM aka Christian Apologetics Research ministry has made many many fallacious claims in virtually all of its articles. The article above is no exception, as we shall soon see.

The Author of this article, Matt Slick, starts out by explaining his view of Total Depravity. Matt argues that because of our fallen nature those who are regenerate cannot convince the unregenerate that God exists and died for our sins with evidence. Not only is this demonstrably false (many people have converted to Christianity because of the evidence for it) the passage he uses, Romans 1:18-22 doesn’t even support his view all that well.

"18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,

19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.

20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,”

While this passage no doubt is consistent with total depravity, it does not imply at all that people cannot be convinced by evidence. Indeed verse 19 seems to indicate the opposite, that everyone has been convinced from the evidence around them (if you want to use Matt’s own sloppy interpretation of course). Thus to use these verses in support of Matt’s view seems to be no less than foolish. 

Matt continues with a second verse to support his view 1 Corinthians 2:14 which states; 

"14 But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised."

It seems to me a more accurate interpretation of these is that what is known about God, or God’s general revelation, is obvious or intuitive from creation and natural men understand it, but that God’s special revelation, the things of the Spirit of God, are not understood by men and can only be understood by God’s grace. So these verses do not seem to be saying that men cannot be convinced that Christianity is true, but that spiritual truths cannot be understood by natural men, without the grace of God. Its also unclear why God could not use evidence to bring people to Christ. Could God not open peoples minds to perceive the evidence and understand it to be convincing? Here Matts claims are far too vague to be of any use, if he wants to show the Bible supports his view, he needs to do more than quote a few verses.

Matt then gives this fictitious conversation as an illustration of his thought process;

"Allen:  I am an atheist and evolutionist.  Prove to me there is a God.
Paul:   I do not think I can do that, because of your presuppositions.
Allen:  Why not?
Paul:  Because your presuppositions will not allow you to examine without bias the evidence that I present to you for God's existence. 
Allen: That is because there is no evidence for God's existence.
Paul:  See?  There you go.  You just confirmed what I was stating.
Allen:  How so?
Paul:  Your presupposition is that there is no God; therefore, no matter what I might present to you to show His existence, you must interpret it in a manner consistent with your presupposition: namely, that there is no God.  If I were to have a video tape of God coming down from heaven, you'd say it was a special effect.  If I had a thousand eye-witnesses saying they saw Him, you'd say it was mass-hysteria.  If I had Old Testament prophecies fulfilled in the New Testament, you'd say they were forged, dated incorrectly, or not real prophecies.  So, I cannot prove anything to you since your presupposition won't allow it.  It is limited.
Allen: It is not limited.
Paul:  Yes it is.  Your presupposition cannot allow you to rightly determine God's existence from evidence -- providing that there were factual proofs of His existence.  Don't you see?  If I DID have incontrovertible proof, your presupposition would force you to interpret the facts consistently with your presupposition and you would not be able to see the proof.
Allen:  I see your point, but I am open to being persuaded, if you can.
Paul:  Then, I must ask you, what kind of evidence would you accept that would prove God's existence?  I must see what your presuppositions are and work either with them or against them.”


This conversation seems horribly contrived, and doesn’t make much sense when one takes a closer look. Matt seems to think that to hold to atheism means to hold that atheism is an axiom which governs all other reasoning. So if someone presents evidence of God’s existence, the atheist will merely reject it on the basis of his axiom, which of course is circular reasoning. Thus Matt here appears to be arguing that it is impossible not to argue in a circle, we all have presuppositions which we hold to without good reason. I’d recommend that Matt do some research in the area of epistemology and familiarize himself with properly basic beliefs. Properly basic beliefs are such that they are either self evident or incorrigible. An example would be the external world, because the external world is apparent to us but we cannot verify nor falsify its true nature, we are rational in believing it is the way we experience it without evidence.


Another interesting point occurs when the character Paul states, "If I were to have a video tape of God coming down from heaven, you'd say it was a special effect.  If I had a thousand eye-witnesses saying they saw Him, you'd say it was mass-hysteria.  If I had Old Testament prophecies fulfilled in the New Testament, you'd say they were forged, dated incorrectly, or not real prophecies.  So, I cannot prove anything to you since your presupposition won't allow it.  It is limited.”


Whether Matt realizes it or not, he is making an entirely different point here. This doesn’t imply that the atheist views his atheism as axiomatic, but that he raises objections to various evidences for God’s existence, which is precisely what an atheist needs to do. Its astonishing to me that Matt Slick thinks this way, because raising objections and responding to them, is simply how reasoning works in any area of life, you cannot say its futile, otherwise you are saying that arguing over any issue is pointless, and thus it is inexplicable why Matt bothered to write this article.


Of course these are just a few bizarre things I’ve found with presuppositional apologetics, or at least its popular interpretations. More critiques of presuppositional apologetics, as well as what I think it gets right, coming soon.