I recently came across this somewhat old video of William Lane Craig (with no white hair and full beard!) in which he talks about presuppositionalism, atheism, and apologetics. I have always been somewhat perplexed (well, not really) as to why Arminians don't use presuppositional apologetics. Video is below.It really does come down to Dr. Craig being a consistent Arminian and somehow thinking that if enough "evidence" (physical, or philosophical) is given, then the non-Christian will somehow become convinced. A rather man-centered apologetic for a man-centered theology.
When I first was watching the video, I thought that he would address presuppositionalism as a method but he never actually does. He talks about atheistic presuppositions, but never delves any deeper. The purpose of the video was to answer this question: "What role does one's philosophical assumptions play in doing historical research, particularly related to the resurrection of Jesus?" Now, to be fair, Dr Craig wasn't asked to address the issue of presuppositionalism directly, only the narrower question of how one's presuppositions affect how one does historical research for the NT. But what he says is a reflection of his apologetic method and his Arminian theology.
Here are some key statements within the video, and my interactions:
"I think that one's philosophical presuppositions will be an important guide in doing historical work with respect to the NT narratives because these narratives overtly present a supernatural Jesus.... and if you come to these narratives with a presupposition of .... naturalism... that is to say, that as a historian, you will not allow supernatural causes to enter the picture, then these events will be ruled out of court, in advance regardless of the evidence.
I think that this is fundamentally the problem with the methodology employed by the infamous Jesus seminar..... the first pillar of scholarly wisdom (as they put it) is scientific naturalism.
.... anything that had supernatural aspects to it was by definition relegated to myth rather than history, now this is not a matter of argument, it's not a matter of evidence. This is simply a matter of definition... The supernatural is defined as being in the category of mythical, not historical. And if you begin with those sorts of presuppositions then of course the resurrection will be evaluated as un-historical because you have defined it as un-historical.
.... they (Jesus seminar) think of the risen of Christ as not a historical individual and this is done so not on the basis of evidence but on the basis of presuppositions.
.... the degree to which one will be ready to trust these documents (gospels) depends more upon one's openness to a supernatural worldview than it does upon their literary and historical qualities. So I think this is absolutely crucial and ... philosophically, I see no reason to adopt such a philosophical naturalism.
It seems to me that only an atheist could be justified in saying that miracles are impossible because unless you have some proof of atheism, you have to be open to the possibility that God exists, and if that is even possible, then it is possible that He's acted in history. So in the absence of any proof for atheism, which I don't think anyone has, we have to be open to the possibility of the supernatural and let the evidence speak for itself."
------------------------------
WLC: "I think that one's philosophical presuppositions will be an important guide in doing historical work with respect to the NT narratives because these narratives overtly present a supernatural Jesus.... and if you come to these narratives with a presupposition of .... naturalism... that is to say, that as a historian, you will not allow supernatural causes to enter the picture, then these events will be ruled out of court, in advance regardless of the evidence."
CSL: In the beginning Dr. Craig rightly recognizes that one's presupposition of naturalism, by definition, will eliminate anything inherently supernatural. I appreciate that he made it very clear that this would happen regardless of any evidence that "proves" otherwise.
WLC: "I think that this is fundamentally the problem with the methodology employed by the infamous Jesus seminar..... the first pillar of scholarly wisdom (as they put it) is scientific naturalism."
CSL: Yes.. I agree.
WLC: " .... anything that had supernatural aspects to it was by definition relegated to myth rather than history, now this is not a matter of argument, it's not a matter of evidence. This is simply a matter of definition... The supernatural is defined as being in the category of mythical, not historical. And if you begin with those sorts of presuppositions then of course the resurrection will be evaluated as un-historical because you have defined it as un-historical."
CSL: Here is where I run into problems with Dr. Craig's formulations. I agree with him when he says that (due to the naturalistic presuppositions) that anything supernatural is by definition relegated to myth rather than history.. He goes on to say that the issue behind their unbelief in supernatural is simply a "matter of definition."
It is true that there is a matter of definition involved in this issue. However, the problem is much deeper than mere definitions or simply understanding that this is a myth vs. history problem. It is much deeper than simply defining super-naturalism in the correct way.
The real problem involves consistently understanding that the naturalist worldview that it will want to purposely deny anything supernatural. This absolute denial is manifested by defining supernaturalism as a myth. In other words, the presupposition of naturalism isn't only involving wrongly defined terms, but an intentional and willful disregard for supernatural things. This is a little bit more fleshed out in my discussions on Rom 1 below.
WLC: " .... they (Jesus seminar) think of the risen of Christ as not a historical individual and this is done so not on the basis of evidence but on the basis of presuppositions. "
CSL: Dr Craig makes an interesting statement here, and this statement presupposes that the problem of unbelief by the Jesus seminar can be solved simply by somehow convincing the Jesus seminar that they need to simply look at the evidence and that this will somehow overcome their presuppositions.
The problem with this kind of thinking is that how one understands the evidence presented to him is an indication of what his worldview is, not that they (worldview and interpretation of the evidence) are two separate things.
WLC: ".... the degree to which one will be ready to trust these documents (gospels) depends more upon one's openness to a supernatural worldview than it does upon their literary and historical qualities. So I think this is absolutely crucial and ... philosophically, I see no reason to adopt such a philosophical naturalism."
CSL: This is by far one of the weakest points in Dr Craig's mini-lecture. I am glad that he recognizes that people's unwillingness to trust the historical reliability of the gospels (and by extension, unwillingness to believe) is an issue regarding worldviews and presuppositions.
However, he then incredibly just dismisses this issue of worldviews (and therefore the presuppositions that generate those worldviews) and simply says that he finds no reason to believe in naturalism.
What is going on here? Why such a casual dismissal? This is implicitly answered in the very last part below.
WLC: "It seems to me that only an atheist could be justified in saying that miracles are impossible because unless you have some proof of atheism, you have to be open to the possibility that God exists, and if that is even possible, then it is possible that He's acted in history.
CSL: It seems that he is contradicting himself here. This first sentence doesn't make any sense at all. Atheists will never have any proof of their atheism. Therefore, they can never be justified in saying that miracles are impossible. I think that he had a "brain fart" in that first sentence.
WLC: So in the absence of any proof for atheism, which I don't think anyone has, we have to be open to the possibility of the supernatural and let the evidence speak for itself."
CSL: Yes, while atheists don't have any actual proof of their atheism, but even with the atheist's own alleged proof of his atheism, that "proof" isn't the reason that he is an atheist. The issue is the total depravity in his heart and mind have been completely corrupted due to the sin nature that he inherited from Adam. And from that sin nature, his worldview is therefore corrupted.
Even if the atheist acknowledges that he has no proof of his atheism, he will never, on his own volition, be open to the supernatural, and no amount of evidence will convince him otherwise.
Dr Craig's assumption is that once we expose to an atheist that he as no proof for his atheism, it isn't that much of a leap to getting him ***on his own volition*** to be open to the possibility of the supernatural. This line of thinking denies the reality of total depravity in man's heart. And this is not surprising given the fact that Dr Craig is a staunch Arminian.
Another big picture issue is the troubling remarks that he makes regarding that one must be open to the possibility that God exists.
It is a FACT and a revealed TRUTH that the Triune God exists, and that the atheist does not acknowledge this (or more precisely, suppresses that innate knowledge and revelation, Rom. 1) is irrelevant to how we should be preaching the revealed truth of the Bible. It is not that it is possible that God acted in history, or that He does exist, it is an inviolable certainty that He actually did act and that He does exist.
And for one to start with the presupposition that He may or may not exist (as does all Arminian apologetics), this is to deny how the Bible starts with the fact that God exists and this then places the non-believer in the judge's seat to examine the "evidence" and make a determination himself as to whether God exists or not.
How is allowing a non-Christian the opportunity to "decide" whether or not the evidence is convincing being honoring to God as the true judge over all?
The problems that were present in Dr Craig's mini-lecture really boils down to several other key things:
1)While he is keenly aware of the atheist's presuppositions, in this lecture specifically, and as a reflection of his larger apologetical methodology, he never deals with those presuppositions. It seems amazing to me that in this very short lecture, his best argument against the atheist presuppositions is simply to convince the unbeliever to be open to the possibility of the supernatural by attempting to get him to seem more "evidence" and that will somehow win over the atheist.
From a biblical and apologetical standpoint, the unbeliever already does knows that God exists. Romans 1 tells us that all men have clearly been shown who God is: "For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse" God has been clearly seen, and all men are without excuse. There is no need to provide any evidence to the natural man. The task then becomes to show the natural man that he already does believe in God and that it is only through his belief in God can he think, assign meaning and logic and order to anything. At that point, it is understood that his understanding that God exists has been suppressed for so long. "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness"
2) With Rom 1 in mind, again, there is no need to provide the unbeliever with more evidence. And in fact, the motive behind throwing evidence upon evidence to the unbeliever is to attempt to prove to him that God exists. Why would God need to prove to any man that He exists, esp. in light of Rom 1? And esp. in light of the fact that attempting to "prove" to someone that God exists means that you are attempting to "vindicate" God through that man. Now, that man becomes the judge and not God.
It is this natural man that needs to submit to the Lord by our showing him that he cannot exist at all without God being presupposed. The intent behind this is to show that he must submit to the Lord Jesus Christ because if he doesn't, his life is one big disobedient and inconsistent, contradictory and meaningless existence.
3) Finally, since Dr. Craig's approach never deals with the core foundational presuppositions of natural man because he never addresses them either in this video or in his apologetic in general, it is only through the methodology of presuppositional apologetics that the natural man can ever be confronted with his utter defiance of God, and his utter inconsistency of wanting to borrow from the Christian worldview in order to say that God does not exist.
And since Theocracy is the worst, the nearer any government approaches to Theocracy the worse it will be. A metaphysic held by the rulers with the force of a religion, is a bad sign. It forbids them, like the inquisitor, to admit any grain of truth or good in their opponents, it abrogates the ordinary rules of morality, and it gives a seemingly high, super-personal sanction to all the very ordinary human passions by which, like other men, the rulers will frequently be actuated. In a word, it forbids wholesome doubt. A political programme can never in reality be more than probably right. We never know all the facts about the present and we can only guess the future. To attach to a party programme — whose highest claim is to reasonable prudence — the sort of assent which we should reserve for demonstrable theorems, is a kind of intoxication.”
CL says: "Mikelmann,
Of course, it is a little difficult in some sense through the Internet, but in another way, it should actually be more convenient because one can actually sit and think of a response instead of talking on the fly.
The reason that I was asking you these questions is that you are not engaging with my arguments. I specifically brought up this issue in my previous response to make it easier for both of us by asking you point blank questions.
My questions have not posed any new challenge to your positions. I asked you these questions based on my arguments that I already gave you which you never addressed.
You still have yet to engage any of my arguments. I do appreciate that you want to engage. But, that still doesn't mean that you have addressed any of my points at all.
I don't want to see you quoting Justice Scalia or even the Constitution as if that somehow settles the matter.
This is an epistemological and theological discussion that you and I and the rest of Bayly blog are conducting.
I honestly do value this discussion with you and this is why I am stressing so much that I want to hear ***YOUR*** arguments, and not quotes from SCOTUS or from the Constitution.
Please provide an argument against my overall position in reference to Romans 13 and the (derivative) authority that God gives every civil magistrate.
In addition to my "47" questions, you also still have yet to engage my question to you as to why your understanding of the function of govt is not moral. I agree with you on this particular point that govt does "create" space etc... (among other things that it is called to do).. This is an inherently moral function.
If we are to understand that something being moral is pertaining to the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong, how can your understanding of the function of govt NOT be moral?
If you feel that it is "right" to provide this space, (which I do too), then as I asked you previously, how can this not be moral?
Also, moral coercion is inherent within the purpose of government!
I have already addressed this in my arguments about how govt reflects moral law (or at least, their "understanding" of it) and makes statutes based on this.
If govt cannot coerce anything, then govt has absolutely no power to do what it is intended to do. So, if one man wants to murder another, but the govt has no moral coercive power, then it has no ethical and logical basis to punish that murderer.
Also, it concerns me that you still don't understand what my positions are. The fact that you are asking me whether I think that laws *ought* to be moral or *are* moral really concerns me because I have addressed this rather clearly in my previous posts.
Of course, we could spend days (as we already have) on this thread and I can give you more epistemological and theological arguments and support, but at this point, I think that there is really nothing more that I can add to this discussion that will help you understand what I am trying to say.
I cannot continue to do this exchange with you if you are not making a serious attempt to understand my positions.
For now, it really does pain me to do this, but with my competing priorities that I have, I am done with responding to you until you can provide me (and the audience in this blog) cogent arguments against my positions. Notwithstanding my disappointment with certain aspects of our discussions, I do appreciate our exchange. May God continue to sharpen both of us."
Mikelmann says: "Yeah, this isn't really working out. I've had dialogues in various blogs and there are plenty who are able to recognize central principles and work through them. But David is a good example of what happens here. Lewis writes about contrasting two forms of government and David says "Lewis is wrong on the psalms!" Er, OK, David. Chris talks as if moral coercion is the essence of the moral law but doesn't see the relevance of discussing whether the WLC should then be enforced.
I will thank DTM who can very frequently recognize and discuss core issues even if we sometimes reach different conclusions. I think the Bayly commenters on the whole need to interact with more folks outside your circle to get better at it."
----------------------
It is disappointing that mikelmann absolutely refused to engaged with any of my arguments and proceeded to devolve into name calling, when he knows that he could not refute anything that I have said.
I don't mind if other people are being aggressive and calling people out (properly) in exchanges like this. However, if one does not have any argument, and therefore simply refuses to engage and thinking that name calling or blatant insults constitute a meaningful exchange, this is intellectual dishonesty at its highest. And the implications are ruinous, especially when having discussions about the church's role (or lack thereof) in larger society.