Posted by Ir (Helen) on: 07.17.2006 /
I was on vacation last week - I wrote a little about it on CatE. I had lots of opportunity to be outside and enjoy the beauty of our surroundings.
As I did so I remembered an assertion in the Bible you may be familiar with because some Christians tend to use it against atheists. In fact the hosts of Way of the Master tried to use it against Hemant. Here it is (if you want to look it up for yourself, it’s Romans 1:20):
From the time the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky and all that God made. They can clearly see his invisible qualities–his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse whatsoever for not knowing God.
Comment by: Marty
1For me, my belief in God eminates from the beauty and wonder of nature. If there is proof of God - it is in nature that I find it. I remember as a youth seeing movies on nature from the Moody Bible Institute. One was on the eye, one on bees, etc. For me those are manifestations of God. I look at the beauty that Ir experienced on her vacation and for me that is of God. But that is my choice - and I honor those who see the same things and it does not draw them to think of or believe is a God. It is mystery and choice.
Some feel they “clearly see” others do not.
It terms of using this as something to use against Atheists - I think that is absurd and not the kind of Christian I strive to be.
Comment by: Siamang
2Obviously I don’t think it’s reasonable.
How I would respond to it has to do with who was saying it to me and how much I wanted to stay friends with them.
Depending on who it was, I’d try something between these two approaches:
I’d ask them if they knew what the word “presuppositionalist” means.
or
I’d, roll my eyes, make a big, long, patronizing sigh, fix them with a look in my eyes that makes it clear that they just made the stupidest possible argument for God, and have a two word response that started with the letter F and ended in “you”.
Comment by: Ir
3Marty, thanks for not being the kind of Christian who would use a statement like the one I mentioned against atheists.
Siamang, thanks for your response. Actually, I’ve always wondered what ‘presuppositionalist’ meant. Does it mean “you have too many presuppositions?” Does it have a more specific technical meaning? In some circles it seems like it might, but I never knew what that specific technical meaning was.
Comment by: Eliza
4Is it a reasonable assertion? Well, one way to decide is to dissect it a bit:
This could only be reasonable if people had been around “from the time the world was created” - the creation stories in Genesis (although Adam had the opportunity to speak with God, in the second creation story, so his belief didn’t depend on observing the earth and sky). Other creation stories, and more importantly modern science, put the creation of earth and the first human as different in time.
They can clearly see his invisible qualities? Oxymoron. And, second part, they can “see” his “eternal power”? How can you see that something’s eternal? The words sound compelling but the meaning falls apart on any sort of close inspection, imo.
Right. I can’t see the invisible, I can’t see eternity, I know that people weren’t there at the beginning of the world, I can’t make this make sense rationally.
Comment by: Ir
5Nice analysis, Eliza! :)
(I’d love to hear you do this at a Christian Bible study!)
Comment by: Siamang
6Presuppositionalism is a field of Christian Apologetics that presumes that the Bible is a trustworthy and accurate revelation of God’s will, and then argues from there. It is their unchallengeable axiom: God said it, I believe it, that settles it.
It is by its nature circular. Which is fine if you’re arguing apologetics with another Christian. Or if you’re aguing against straw-man versions of other belief systems for a christian audience.
Not to be too obvious, but a presuppositionalist argument holds no sway with an unbeliever.
Comment by: Siamang
7caveat…. at least as I understand the term presuppositionalism. Anyone who wishes to correct or clarify be my guest.
Comment by: Eliza
8:) I have said from day one (here) that I would love to be in on a Christian-atheist Bible study. But I’m not sure it would last long. I think if I showed up to a Christian Bible study session, the other participants would pass a note among themselves to quick find another place to meet (& not tell me). :)
I’d also like to put Romans 1:20 in its context - it’s part of a longer description of what happens to unbelievers (the “unrighteous”), including this (ESV):
I am an atheist, an unbeliever, and yet the only part of the above descriptions that applies to me is “faithless” (ipso facto - how could it be otherwise?). (I have also gossiped on occasion.) The other non-Christians I know are reasonable, fair, kind people - the above description does not apply to them either. So, disproven by example, where does that leave this entire claim?
Comment by: Ir
9Thanks Siamang.
Eliza, suffice it to say, Romans 1 is not my favorite Bible chapter.
(I do like some other parts of Romans).
I think it would be hard to find a Bible-believing Bible study group who would welcome you with open arms. It would be emotionally difficult for them (I think) to hear what you have to say about the Bible. They are usually open to people who aren’t Christians only when such people limit themselves to questions rather than confidently jumping in and pointing out that Bible passages don’t seem to reflect the reality they live in.
Comment by: Eliza
10And, one more type of ‘analysis’. Romans 1:20 is, imo, an example of strategic self-preservational (imo) and self-promotional (imo) comments sprinkled through the Bible: it’s all true & obvious; God (& the Bible) can’t be questioned; believers will reap marvelous rewards in Heaven; unbelievers are awful people and will fry horrifically in Hell; and believers should spread the word. (Sorry, I know that’s not a way to make friends, but this view is anathema to most/many/all(?) Cs yet obvious to most/many/all As.)
Comment by: Eliza
11Ir - you’re right, my questions and comments would come across as threatening, and/or disrespectful, not matter how I tried to phrase them. That’s why I decided not to go to a series of Adult Bible classes offered last fall to “anyone” who was interested, in a mailing that came from a local church. I figured it would be hard for me to sit in the back & just listen, not ask questions or make comments, and I figured that wouldn’t be fair to the pastor and to the attendees who really wanted to learn. *Sigh*
Comment by: Eliza
12(that is, “who really wanted to learn the material in the planned curriculum!)
Comment by: Ir
13Eliza wrote:
LOL - yes, I’m sure your material wouldn’t be on the planned curriculum!
Comment by: Siamang
14Check your speaker volume before clicking.
http://rayualuealuealeuale.ytmnd.com/
Comment by: Ir
15LOL Siamang! :)
Comment by: Mike C
16To clarify on Siamang’s behalf:
Presuppositionalism is a broader philosophical term than just as used by Christian apologetics. It basically refers to the idea that everything anyone knows is based on certain unprovable and foundational presuppositions. These presuppositions are not necessarily “religious” in nature. Sometimes they are as simple as presupposing that our senses actually give us some kind of access to a “real” world outside of our minds, and that the laws of logic have some bearing on the way things really are. But at any rate, the idea is just that no one can know anything without presupposing some things without “evidence” or “proof”.
And given that definition, I suppose I’d be fine admitting that I am a presuppositionalist myself.
Comment by: Siamang
17Thanks, Mike. I wasn’t aware of it being used more broadly.
I can only find it being used in reference to Christian Apologetics, though. Is the word ever used outside of the Christian context by non-Christians?
What I mean is, I understand (and have heard used against my arguments) the broad claim by Christians that “we both make pre-assumptions.” By which I mean, I have heard Christians attempt to justify their Presuppositionalist Christian arguments and how they should somehow make logical sense to me by saying “hey you and I both make assumptions.”
But is it a word that exists outside of Christian apologetics?
I couldn’t find it in the Oxford American Dictionary, and Wikipedia came up with only “Christian Presuppositionalism” as an entry, not the word “Presuppositionalism” alone.
Comment by: Mike C
18Honestly, I don’t know. I know that it originated within Christian apologetics, specifically with Cornelius Van Til; but I also know that when I studied philosophy we referred to the concept in a much broader way than simply in reference to apologetics. It had to do with our whole epistemology, i.e. with the preconditions that make knowledge possible in the first place. But then, I studied philosophy at a Christian college, so maybe we were more inclined to utilize that term than non-Christian philosophers would be.
Either way, it seems rather obvious to me that there are certain aspects of human knowledge that simply have to be accepted as a priori, without proof. For instance try proving any of the laws of logic without actually referring to the laws of logic themselves (and thereby creating a circular argument). It can’t be done. They just have to be presupposed.
Comment by: Siamang
19Gödel showed that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel’s_incompleteness_theorem
I can’t begin to enumerate how many times Christians have argued that since it’s all presuppositions anyway, I should chuck mine and adopt theirs.
It’s such a disingenuous argument. If it were valid, there would be no reason why they shouldn’t chuck theirs and adopt mine!
Comment by: Julie Marie
20I just have to make a little comment here…until the ebay atheist project i had no idea how many times As have heard the standard arguements. Even the nonstandard arguements.
You guys have the patience of Job, I tell ya ;)