Read Part 1 of this series HERE.
Sociology of Knowledge and Presuppositionalism
The presuppositional apologetic method of defending Christianity “is the apologetic system that...presupposes the truth of Christianity and then reasons from that point.”18 It is my contention that the presuppositional method, even though it argues against many of the skeptical conclusions of the previously discussed modern philosophical notions, is actually built on, and subject to much of the same critique as, those very same errors. For, just like modern philosophy, it seeks to have a settled epistemology prior to metaphysics which has devastating results. As Van Til says, “The finite consciousness cannot and will not recognize that its gold is false though glittering and its eyesalve [sic] only blinding. Methodologically it continues its mistake of pushing on the metaphysical issue before the epistemological has been settled.”19
Given this, it seems that the whole presuppositional approach, if you will pardon the pun, presupposes a representationalist epistemology similar to that already explained. In other words, just like modern philosophy, presuppositionalism is built on the notion that our ideas are that which we know, and not that by which we know. For example, in speaking of Adam’s original created state, Van Til says, “[Adam] wanted to be nothing but a re-interpreter of the interpretation of God. He was receptive to God’s revelation which appeared within him and round about him; he would reconstruct this revelation. He was receptively reconstructive [emphasis mine].”20 He says elsewhere, “If Christianity is true, the ‘facts’ are what God says they must be; if the Kantian position is true, the ‘facts’ are what man says they must be.”21 Van Til’s position is summarized well when he notes, “With more or less consistency the followers of Kant ascribe, by implication if not otherwise, ultimate definitory power to the mind of man. Christianity, on the other hand, ascribes ultimate definitory power to the mind of God [emphasis mine].”22
Greg Bahnsen, one of the foremost presuppositional thinkers and a disciple of Van Till, says,
[The believer] views logic as rules of thought implanted in man’s mind by the Creator; the [unbeliever] sees logic as the self-sufficient, self-authenticating tool of autonomous man’s reason....The Christian and non-Christian will take different minds as the final reference point in their own thinking; the believer will use patterns of thought and interpretation provided by God while the unbeliever will derive them from the created world itself (e.g., his own mind) [emphasis mine].23
He goes on to say,
So the most fundamental premise of all autonomous science, the uniformity of nature, is neither empirically nor rationally justifiable! [note the Humean/nominalistic view of nature]...If science proceeds autonomously, then the only thing that can be discovered in the world is man’s own interpretative and ordering activity; nature merely echoes back the thoughts of the autonomous man. Hence he ends up accepting his own revelation, based on his own authority [emphasis mine].24
Notice that, ironically, whether one ascribes this “definitory power” or “final reference point” to man or to God, ultimately the epistemological, and thus hermeneutical, endeavors are still in the mind alone, which is precisely the modern position.
Bahnsen illustrates the natural emergence within presuppositionalism of something very similar to SOK when he explains,
Since neutrality is unattainable for either the unbeliever or believer...There are no facts or uses of reason which are available outside of the interpretive system of basic commitments or assumptions which appeals to them; the presuppositions used by Christian and non-Christian determine what they will accept as factual and reasonable, and their respective presuppositions about fact and logic will determine what they say about reality. [emphasis mine].25
This sentiment is repeated often throughout the writings of both Bahnsen and Van Til. Other presuppositionalists follow suit. For instance, the outstanding historical apologist Michael Kruger reminds us that those who do not subscribe to presuppositionalism “forget that every person has a ‘world view’ through which and by which he interprets the evidence—making neutrality an impossibility.”26 He then quotes apologist John Frame as saying, “We never encounter ‘brute,’ that is, uninterpreted facts. We only encounter facts that have been interpreted in terms of our existing commitments.”27 Further equating neutrality with objectivity, Bahnsen concludes, “The patent corollary of all the foregoing discussion is the impossibility of neutrality in an argument dealing with wide-scope and fundamental issues. It should be recognized that the claim to be, or the attempt to be, completely objective and value-free in deciding an issue of truth is ridiculous [emphasis mine].”28
The interesting thing about SOK within the context of presuppositionalism is the theological aspect involved. Not only does one’s preunderstanding or world view include his past experiences and the like, but it also includes the fact that our minds, and societies, are tainted with sin. Given the apparent representationalist epistemology of presuppositionalism, the noetic effects of sin are disastrous for man. If man’s mind is darkened, and knowledge starts in the mind, then it stands to reason that man is incapable of accurately knowing anything about reality.
Speaking of sinful man after Adam, Van Til asserts, “In the second place we deal with the fallen or non-regenerate consciousness...It will not be receptive of God’s interpretation; it wants to create its own interpretation without reference to God. It will not reconstruct God’s interpretation. It will construct only its own interpretation.”29 In other words, because of man’s fallen state, he is unable accurately to reconstruct reality because he refuses to “reconstruct God’s interpretation” of reality. Thus, man is left in a darkened state with regards to real knowledge about reality from which he cannot escape without the Holy Spirit performing some redemptive work within him. Discussing the possibility of debating with fallen man, Van Til goes so far as to say, “But will he [unregenerate man] be able to follow me in my reasoning with him? Haven’t I just before, myself, portrayed him as unable and unwilling to see anything for what it really is? Indeed I have.”30 Therefore, according to presuppositionalism, our 3-D glasses not only have the color of our world view but also the color of sin which hopelessly, and negatively, colors our view of reality. Perhaps you recall the “jaundiced eyes” Van Til mentioned earlier. In context he says,
When man became a sinner he made of himself instead of God the ultimate or final reference point. And it is precisely this presupposition, as it controls without exception all forms of non-Christian philosophy, that must be brought into question. If this presupposition is left unquestioned in any field all the facts and arguments presented to the unbeliever will be made over by him according to his pattern. The sinner has cemented colored glasses to his eyes which he cannot remove. And all is yellow to the jaundiced eye.31
Read Part 3, A Critique, HERE.
END NOTES
18 Norman L. Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, Baker Reference Library (Grand Rap- ids, MI: Baker Books, 1999), 607.
19 Cornelius Van Til (2012-09-05). Reformed Epistemology (Kindle Locations 1163-1165). Kindle Edition.
20 Cornelius Van Til, The Defense of the Faith, The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company: Philadelphia, 1955. Logos edition (page number not available). A related issue here is the question of “the interpretation of God.” Does God actually interpret reality? I would argue He does not.
21 Cornelius Van Til and Eric H. Sigward. The Articles of Cornelius Van Til, Electronic ed. Labels Army Company: New York, 1997. Logos edition (page number not available).
22 Ibid.
23 Greg Bahnsen (2009-03-01). Presuppositional Apologetics: Stated & Defended (Kindle Locations 2229- 2243). American Vision. Kindle Edition.
24 Ibid., Kindle Locations 2613-2647.
25 Ibid., Kindle Locations 595-604.
26 Michael Kruger, “Sufficiency of Scripture in Apologetics,” The Master’s Seminary Journal, Spring 2001: 76. http://www.tms.edu/tmsj/tmsj12m.pdf (accessed Aug. 2, 2012).
27 John Frame, The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God (Phillipsburg, N.J.: Presbyterian and Reformed Pub- lishing, 1987) 117. Quoted in Ibid.
28 Bahnsen, Presuppositional Apologetics, Kindle Locations 2199-2205.
29 Van Til, The Defense of the Faith.
30 Ibid.
31 Ibid.