{"id":1184,"date":"2023-10-19T18:51:27","date_gmt":"2023-10-19T18:51:27","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2023\/10\/19\/a-van-til-response-to-my-anti-presuppositionalism\/"},"modified":"2023-10-19T18:51:27","modified_gmt":"2023-10-19T18:51:27","slug":"a-van-til-response-to-my-anti-presuppositionalism","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2023\/10\/19\/a-van-til-response-to-my-anti-presuppositionalism\/","title":{"rendered":"A Van Til Response to my Anti-Presuppositionalism"},"content":{"rendered":"

This is the third in a new series on presuppositionalism. The first installment is here<\/a>, and the second here<\/a>. <\/span><\/p>\n

I've been re-reading large chunks of Cornelius Van Til, The Defense of the Faith,<\/em> P & R Publishing, 2008. This fourth edition, edited by K. Scott Oliphint, includes the complete text of the original 1955 edition and useful footnote commentary by Oliphint.<\/span><\/p>\n

You will recall my claim that with respect to the existence of God there are rationally acceptable arguments for<\/em> and rationally acceptable arguments against<\/em>, but no rationally compelling<\/em> arguments on either side. So I was pleased to find an attempt by Van Til to respond to this sort of objection. (DF 126) He formulates the objection as follows:<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

"While a Christian can prove that his Christian position is fully as reasonable as the opponent's view, there is no such thing as an absolutely compelling proof that God exists, or that the Bible is the Word of God, just as little as anyone can prove its opposite."<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Van Til then responds:<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

In this way of putting the matter there is a confusion between what is objectively valid and what is subjectively acceptable to the natural man. <\/span><\/p>\n

[. . .] <\/span><\/p>\n

It is precisely the Reformed Faith which, among other things, teaches the total depravity of the natural man, which is most loathsome to that natural man.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Turning to p. 352, we learn that the natural man is "spiritually dead." "The natural man does not know God." Or rather, he knows God in an implicit way, but suppresses "the knowledge of God given man by virtue of creation in God's image." On p. 255 we learn that having been made in the image of God we have an "ineradicable sense of deity" within us. This of course is Calvin's sensus divinitatis<\/em>. Van Til makes bold to say, further, that men's "own consciousness is inherently and exclusively  revelational of God to themselves," and that "No man can help knowing God, for in knowing himself, he knows God."  <\/span><\/p>\n

I'll conclude the quoting with a Van Tilian slam against the 'Romanists' as he often refers to them: <\/span><\/p>\n

\n

It  is the weakness of the Roman Catholic and Arminian methods that they virtually identify objective validity with subjective acceptability to the natural man. Distinguishing carefully between these two, the Reformed apologist maintains that there is an absolutely valid argument for the existence of God and the truth of Christian theism. (126)<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Respondeo<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n

'Virtually' is one of those weasel words that good writers either avoid or define.  But let that pass. Speaking for myself and not for the 'Romanists,' I will say that what Van Til is doing above is simply adding a layer of psychologizing to his question-begging.  He is engaging in the opposite kind of pure metaphysical bluster as I accused<\/a> Galen Strawson of engaging in. Strawson:<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

We can, for example, know with certainty that the Christian God does not exist as standardly defined: a being who is omniscient, omnipotent, and wholly benevolent. The proof lies in the world, which is full of extraordinary suffering. If someone claims to have a sensus divinitatis<\/em> that picks up a Christian God, they are deluded. It may be added that genuine belief in such a God, however rare, is profoundly immoral: it shows contempt for the reality of human suffering, or indeed any intense suffering.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

What we have here are two opposite forms of pure bluster.  Neither Van Til nor Strawson can prove what they claim to be certain of, and both psychologize their opponents,  the one by appeal to a supposed "total depravity," the other by appeal  to insanity.   <\/span><\/p>\n

There is nothing to choose between these two opposite forms of bluster. And so, dear reader, does not my position strike you as the only sane and reasonable one?<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

This is the third in a new series on presuppositionalism. The first installment is here, and the second here.  I've been re-reading large chunks of Cornelius Van Til, The Defense of the Faith, P & R Publishing, 2008. This fourth edition, edited by K. Scott Oliphint, includes the complete text of the original 1955 edition … Continue reading “A Van Til Response to my Anti-Presuppositionalism”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[128,194],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1184","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-reason-and-rationality","category-van-til-and-presuppositionalism"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1184","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1184"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1184\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1184"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1184"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1184"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}