Presuppositionalism
is a Christian apologetic method that seems to be invading Christian theology
as of late; ever since presuppositionalism was first promulgated by Cornelius
Van Til it has been gaining more and more adherents. This, I believe, is to be
expected, because presuppositionalism seems prima facie plausible and even
intellectually appealing. Yet, after a closer glance towards the philosophical
underpinnings of presuppositionalism, I maintain that it can be demonstrated to
rest on egregious conflations and misunderstandings. It is one—there are many more—of these conflations that will
occupy our attention at the present moment.
Let us
begin with a quick formulation of presuppositionalism. Presuppositionalism is a
method whereby one defends the Christian worldview, yet it attempts to complete
this journey through a peculiar path. Presuppositionalism disagrees with all other methods of rational inquiry by
beginning epistemologically with God, and scripture, whereas all other methods
begin with man as their reference point. Presuppositionalism claims that every
man adheres to an ultimate authority, and that the ultimate authority must be God and the Bible, as opposed to
human autonomy. Moreover, since this authority is ultimate, it must be the
light that illuminates all the facts we interpret. It must be the
presupposition under which we bring our thoughts into conformity; that is, it
must be the ultimate foundation that supports all our inferences. In his Defense of the Faith, Cornelius Van Til, the father of presuppositionalism, states
the following:It is the actual existence of the God of Christian theism and the infallible authority of Scripture which speaks to sinners of this God that must be taken as the presupposition of the intelligibility of any fact in the world.
A
presupposition, as formulated in this context, is analogous to that of an axiom
or a postulate. If something is presupposed then it is something which does not
need justification, which is self-evident, and which provides the foundation
for subsequent inferences—i.e. all premises can be traced back to this
presupposition. Therefore, the presuppositionalist maintains that God and
scripture must be one’s presupposition, and that this presupposition does not
need justification, is self-evident, and provides the foundation for all
rational inquiry. But, how does one arrive at such a thesis as claiming that
God and scripture can be assumed as such a presupposition? Van Til articulates:
As Christians we hold that determinate human experience could work to no end, could work in accordance with no plan, and could not even get under way, if it were not for the existence of the absolute will of God. It is on this ground then that we hold to the absolute will of God as the presupposition of the will of man.
My interest is only to show that it takes an ultimate cause, God, if there are to be genuine second causes. In other words, it is only on the presupposition of the truth of Christianity that science is to be explained.
Van Til
is claiming that if Christianity is true, then the whole of human experience
depends ontologically on God. Therefore, our being depends on God’s being, and thus
God’s consciousness must be presupposed in every instance of our consciousness.
Yet,
this is where presuppositionalists have made a huge error. While the above
formulations by Van Til seem appealing, to Christians, they, nevertheless, rest
on a fallacious bait-and-switch whereby ontology is conflated with
epistemology. That is, Van Til makes a claim regarding our existence being
somehow dependent upon (or beginning with) God and then infers that our
epistemology must also be dependent upon (and begin with) God. But, there is no
reason to believe that the origin of being is equivalent to the origin of
knowledge. Now, I as a Christian believe in God and, therefore, believe that
our being is grounded in and finds its origination in God. But, this does not
mean that our knowledge, therefore, must also begin with God. As R.C. Sproul
says, “The order of being is not equivalent to the order of knowledge.” For example,
our being is in some (secondary) sense caused by and begins with our parents,
but it does not follow that our knowledge is also caused by and begins with our
parents.
Furthermore,
not only is the presuppositionalist’s jump from ontology to epistemology
unwarranted, but, even if the jump were
warranted, it seems to betray the nature of epistemology itself. For, in order
for one to gain knowledge, they must begin with themselves—that is, with their
own consciousness as their starting point (hence, Descartes cogito ergo sum). But,
if we must begin with ourselves as the epistemological starting point, then how
can we, as the presuppositionalist asserts, begin with God? Moreover, how is it
even possible to begin outside of ourselves epistemologically? Surely such a venture
is incoherent. Yet, this is what must take place if God and scripture are to be
presupposed. Thus, it seems that presuppositionalists have simply misunderstood
the nature of epistemology.
What we
have witnessed is that the foundational claim of presuppositionalism—that God
and scripture must be presupposed—rests on a conflation of ontology and
epistemology, as well as a simple misunderstanding of the nature of how we acquire
knowledge in the first place. A method that misconstrues so many fundamental
aspects of philosophy should, obviously, not be adhered to.
