Apologetics

I've been thinking a ton about apologetic methodology, and if you love the topic you'll probably like reading my meanderings.

1) Neutrality? I used to attend Faith Community Church pastored by Dr. Robert Morey, so I definitely learned a lot about his views while I was there. Still, I can't help but see more and more how confused he is in everything concerning natural theology and apologetics. This issue is one. Dr. Bob claimed over again that William Lane Craig, J. P. Moreland, Normal Geisler, all ignored epistemological biases and faked neutrality in their conversations with unbelievers.

Besides the horrendous straw man at lumping a Classical Apologist (Craig) and an Evidentialist (Moreland), I have seen that this claim is baseless. Maybe some older Classical Apologists did this, or some Catholics, but not these guys. This claim is ridiculous and baffling considering that we must be as accurate as possible when describing another person's belief. Honestly, I do not know of even one apologist today who believes in neutrality since they all accept that there is a measure of truth to the statement that "all perceptions are theory-laden."

2) One or two stories? Classical Apologetics believes that the "Apologetic house" must consist of two stories: the first story seeks to demonstrate that the God-hypothesis is most probable which then provides the conceptual framework to make the second story of Christianity more palpable. The first story establishes theism, the second, Christianity. Essentially, those of these brand tend to start with a cosmological argument, etc.

The Evidential approach (not to be confused with the epistemological theory of Evidentialism), on the other hand, seeks to establish the truth of Christianity through a one-step approach by using miracular accounts that are historically based. Essentially, they tend to start by appealing to the reliability of the gospels and the probability of Christ's death and resurrection.

I'm not too sure where I stand here. I used to believe that the two-step approach was wrong because, as Dr. Bob repeats over and over again, the first story can "prove" any god. My answer is "so what?" It is obvious that this will be the case given the fact that nobody can fully supress God's revelation and the image of God; thus, different religions will find much common ground with Christianity. Should we abandon an argument because other people who can identify with it are ultimately inconsistent? That seems illogical to me.

Moreover, who's to say that going "halfway" between atheism and Christianity, namely, theism, is all that wrong? Going part of the way does not necessitate that one is going the wrong way.

Anyway, conceptually I am inclined to accept the two-story method over the one-step approach; yet, I cannot help but say that how many stories the house will have will depend on the guest one is inviting over. Whereas some secularists will reject Jesus' resurrection based on its implausability (in their worldview) even though it is the most comprehensive and consistent of all its competitors (again, in their view), others will be inclined to accept the resurrection because the coherence of theism has already been established. It really just depends.

3) Presuppositionalism. My reservations with any version of non-Framian Presuppositionalism are many. I don't have the time to spell them out here but I would agree with the idea of arguing transcendentally as God being the grounding of our properly-working faculties. Still, the objection remains: isn't this circular reasoning?

4) Circular Reasoning? Back when I considered myself a full-fledged Presuppositionalist I would respond to this charge by saying that all reasoning is ultimately circular since one will have to reason all the way back to some sort of starting point, whether that be the Bible, reason, sense perception, etc.

This response seems to me to be inadequate now. Assuming that one is a Foundationalist (all knowledge is grounded in certain knowledge that is not justified by appealing to another belief), one will believe that certain things such as reason and sense perceptions are foundational. These need no "justificiation" since they are just kind of immediate, "a priori, etc.

Anyway, the problem here is that Scripture is nowhere near foundational in this sense. The Bible is something one believes after having already trusted all these foundational, "properly basic", beliefs. Thus, when one appeals to reason, he is at least appealing to the ground of our epistemological structure. However, to appeal to Scripture seems to be like grounding your epistemological structure in mid-air.Circular reasoning? Hmmmm...I think I'll just take Frame's word for it for now.

5) Properly Basic Beliefs. I pondered a possible escape for Presuppositionalism in the proposal that God is a properly basic belief. Properly basic beliefs are beliefs that are not justified by another belief because they are known immediately, such as 2+2=4 and a sense perception of the computer screen's being in front of me (sorta). Alvin Plantinga, some amazing philosopher dude :), has argued that just like any other properly basic belief, given the right circumstances, the idea of God is properly basic. Thus, one does not need evidence to believe in God since He is immediately perceived. That's not why he believes that but I'm just trying to get something out here so as the reader could discern what I'm talking about.

Anyway, if God is a properly basic belief, appealing to God as the basis of all rationality would not be more viciously circular than basing reasoning on...well, on reason. But this still does not save Presuppositionalism, for the Presuppositionalist is not arguing that God is properly basic, but that the Bible be taken as the presupposition of all things.

So in the end, I can't overcome these objections. Presuppositionalism seems to me to be viciously circular and grounded in a concept does not form the grounding of our noetic faculties.

All in all, I'm coming to find that natural theology and evidentialism rock. I had reacted too strongly against them when I became a Presupposionalist, but now I'm more neutral. haha, j/k. :P