![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Presuppositional apologetics is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Former featured article |
The long Frame quote doesn't seem particularly useful in elucidating the preceding paragraph. Could you shorten it, summarize or paraphrase it, or something? (Could you also login, so I know who you are? :-) ) -- Flex 04:16, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Taxman, I reverted some of your edits to the intro because I felt they made it a little more bulky. For instance, I don't think we need a definition of apologetics here because it duplicates the text in the intro of the "Apologetics" article, which is linked, and "other schools of Christian apologetics" doesn't need the prepositional phrase because the type of school was given two sentences before. --
Flex 20:26, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Also, Flex, can you see a way of doing anything with the quote of Frame? It's so hard to follow -- I tried to come up with a way of cutting it back a bit, but honestly all I can envision is cutting it entirely. Perhaps it can be replaced with a more concise explanation/refinement of Frame's views? Just a thought. Jwrosenzweig 22:28, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Flex, great changes -- I like them. I did a little clean up in the intro, but generally I think they work really well. One of the key objections by the editors on the featured article nomination was that not enough time was given to critics -- I've expanded the time given to criticisms of presuppositional apologetics in the circularity section. I think the section had gotten into the structure of explaining an objection in one sentence, but then allowing presuppositionalists a good paragraph to respond. I've tried to even it out a little. If you think I went too far, please leave a note here, or just do some changing and trimming and I'll see how I like it. I'm sure we can work out a good compromise. I hope you like my additions -- Jwrosenzweig 21:55, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The huge contribution by an anon seems largely confusing and redundant to me -- at some points I don't think they'd even read the article (talking about Clarkians, for example, in the circularity section as though they had not yet been introduced). I am inclined to revert it, but I wonder, Flex, if by looking at the contribution you see anything worth keeping? I thought the explanation that existed before the anonymous edit was more than good enough, and I can't say I see much improvement at all in the edit, but if you'd like me to avoid a full revert, I will. I'll come back in the morning, and if no one's objected, I'm going to revert the edit. I'd welcome anyone else's opinion, of course, but I expect it's just Flex and I paying attention at the moment. Jwrosenzweig 22:42, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I think we've resolved enough to withstand another FAC nomination. Flex, if you get the chance, it would be great if you could keep an eye on WP:FAC along with me -- I can handle a lot of the objections, but some of them (like the two Taxman makes) are out of my league, since I don't know what references were used to create the bulk of the article, and I don't know of any other schools of PA. If you don't want to, that's fine, but I'm hoping you and I can finally get this article over the hump and recognized as the solid article it is. Jwrosenzweig 21:05, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
From the article: "any opponents of presuppositional apologetics would characterize the presuppositional argument as resting on a belief in the Bible as the source of truth because it is inspired by God, in whom we can believe because the Bible affirms it and the Bible is the source of truth. While some logicians accept tautology as a legitimate form of argument, most find it impossible to counter, since each premise is only acceptable if the other premise is also found acceptable."
The presuppositional argument given is not a tautology. It can not be reduced to a logical form that can shown to be true regardless of the truth of its parts. The actual problem with this argument is that each of its premises is supported solely by the other. This is circular reasoning rather than a tautology. As for tautologies, they are not necessary to counter since they are true regardless of the truth of the individual statements that comprise them and have nothing to do with their acceptability.
I suggest changing the characterization of the argument to one of circular reasoning rather than as a tautology. Comments?
-- Sancho McCann 20:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Is is just me, or is this article rather long? Mdotley 22:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I think we need more refs in the "Circulaity" section which has none at present, and only skates the surface of some profound issues. Also why on earth is there no mention of Alvin Plantinga who is arguably the greatest living philosopher in this stream NBeale 17:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
As a result of a discussion at WP:FAR initiated by Flex, I went through the article, adding {{fact}} tags, and then cataloging the tags present. Below I include a list of all fact tags in the article at present, in order. I'm hoping some folks will resolve a tag or two, and strike them from the list, so we can strengthen the article and comply with WP:ATT. Thanks! Jwrosenzweig 01:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I went through and revamped much of the article: consolidating redundant points, copyedits for clarity or succinctness, and provided a whole slew of citations to eliminate most of the fact tags as per the FAR list (still several in the Clark section -- I'm not overly familiar with Clark so I left those for someone who is). I put a working draft as a subpage of my user page, here. Please comment or correct. » MonkeeSage « 22:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Ok... I am a college student at a private Bible college and have taken many Bible classes. I read this article and I can barely understand anything! This article is most definitely written at a doctorate level and not at an encyclopedic level. I was able to gather the information that I needed after reading it several times but really - this is the kind of stuff that I would find in one of my thick Biblical studies books. This article seriously needs some language simplification - I doubt that nearly anyone not involved in Biblical studies could understand much from this article.
--
Borisborf (
talk)
04:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
A common criticism of this kind of apologetics is that it employs philosophical rhetoric which is akin to fideism. For instance, you could have the same kind of presuppositional apologetics with Communist ideology, preaching Marx's manifesto as if every one already knew exactly what it was. ADM ( talk) 15:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Surely something so influential on Christian thought should have been roundly criticized by some pretty respected philosophers, but I see no section on this. I read through the article (rather quickly, I admit), but didn't find criticisms buried within the parts of the sections, either.
Anyone have the knowledge to fill in this gap?
* Septegram* Talk* Contributions* 03:43, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
After reading through this, I also found it strange that the article lacks a criticism section (especially since presuppositional apologetics is simply a sleight of hand trick and lacks the substantive value of a true argument, being nothing more than a bare assertion accompanied by circular reasoning). It might also be helpful to include some information about how presuppositional apologetics came into vogue (namely that christian apologists could no longer rely on logic (classical apologetics) or evidence (empirical apologetics) to support their claims, so they tried to attack the concept of logic itself). Skberry889 ( talk) 01:39, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
1. The problem of hard solipsism. To my knowledge this well recognized problem in epistemology has yet to be solved, yet Presuppositional Apologists (PAs for short) seem to think they've found the solution. Somebody must address this in order to have a functioning, quality wikipedia page on PA. 2. The problem of other minds. See above 3. Objective reality. Does it exist, how can you know for sure? See above. 4. Absolute truth. Does it exist, what does it mean, are there more definitions that need treatment? 5. Logical absolutes. What are they, do they exist, what do they refer to, etc.
This list is, of course, just a few of the issues and ideas PA attempts to solve/prove/justify. I've yet to hear anything close to a satisfying treatment of these issues/ideas by PA (other than "They exist and I know this because of Yahweh" or something to that effect). Also, as for my "own personal bias against the Christian worldview," I don't think it adequate to call it a "bias." I simply have never heard or seen (or otherwise encountered) any evidence to support the notion that the Christian worldview is indeed the correct one, and "God did it" is (or should be) insufficient to sway any person on this issue. Then of course, there is a difference between my being unconvinced by any arguments (generally) for the Christian worldview, and the PA argument specifically. One could say I am biased against this argument, inasmuch as I find it intellectually insulting and dishonest to simply assert that Yahweh exists and accuse everybody else of "borrowing from the Christian worldview by using reason, logic and empirical evidence. Thomists and evidentiary apologists aren't dishonest to the degree of PA. PAs don't argue or have debates, they simply take a few ideas from any Epistemology 101 course book, assert that Yahweh provides an adequate foundation, and accuse any naysayer of "borrowing" logic and empirical sensations from their worldview. The current criticism portion of this page is inadequate, as there are many fallacies inherent in PA, and begging the question is just one. I find it reasonable to infer, Ischus, that you haven't considered or contemplated PA to the fullest extent (and I mean no offense when I say this, as most people are not well versed in epistemology (which, incidentally, is why PA seems so satisfying at first glance, but when examined more fully, it is not simply insufficient, but intellectually insulting)), but, like all inferences, I could be wrong. I respectfully request that you research and consider the underlying concepts of PA before shrugging off anybody noting inconsistency and intellectual dishonesty by suggesting that they are blinded by their bias. I think you'll find PA less satisfying when you do. I also request somebody more fully versed in epistemology (and philosophy in general) than myself to ponder PA and weigh in with any possible criticism. My bias against PA is clear in its origin: PA is sophistry (mostly consisting of assertions, equivocation, and evasion), nothing more, nothing less. This fact doesn't preclude the existence of any deity, and I find it reasonable to think that most Christians would be appalled by PA, but again, this is just an inference, and I could be wrong about it. Skberry889 ( talk) 20:00, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Without starting an actual discussion on the subject matter in this comment's title, I feel that this article would be more illuminating if it contained examples of how non-Christians behaved as if Christianity were true. The uniformity of nature example seems a bit weak, and I'd wager that there are more concrete examples since Van Til is considered a notable philosopher. Is there a subject matter expert out there that could elaborate on this tenet? Erik Carson ( talk) 05:21, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Is there something wrong with the second paragraph? It seems to contradict itself. Misty MH ( talk) 00:03, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Presuppositional apologetics is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Former featured article |
The long Frame quote doesn't seem particularly useful in elucidating the preceding paragraph. Could you shorten it, summarize or paraphrase it, or something? (Could you also login, so I know who you are? :-) ) -- Flex 04:16, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Taxman, I reverted some of your edits to the intro because I felt they made it a little more bulky. For instance, I don't think we need a definition of apologetics here because it duplicates the text in the intro of the "Apologetics" article, which is linked, and "other schools of Christian apologetics" doesn't need the prepositional phrase because the type of school was given two sentences before. --
Flex 20:26, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Also, Flex, can you see a way of doing anything with the quote of Frame? It's so hard to follow -- I tried to come up with a way of cutting it back a bit, but honestly all I can envision is cutting it entirely. Perhaps it can be replaced with a more concise explanation/refinement of Frame's views? Just a thought. Jwrosenzweig 22:28, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Flex, great changes -- I like them. I did a little clean up in the intro, but generally I think they work really well. One of the key objections by the editors on the featured article nomination was that not enough time was given to critics -- I've expanded the time given to criticisms of presuppositional apologetics in the circularity section. I think the section had gotten into the structure of explaining an objection in one sentence, but then allowing presuppositionalists a good paragraph to respond. I've tried to even it out a little. If you think I went too far, please leave a note here, or just do some changing and trimming and I'll see how I like it. I'm sure we can work out a good compromise. I hope you like my additions -- Jwrosenzweig 21:55, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The huge contribution by an anon seems largely confusing and redundant to me -- at some points I don't think they'd even read the article (talking about Clarkians, for example, in the circularity section as though they had not yet been introduced). I am inclined to revert it, but I wonder, Flex, if by looking at the contribution you see anything worth keeping? I thought the explanation that existed before the anonymous edit was more than good enough, and I can't say I see much improvement at all in the edit, but if you'd like me to avoid a full revert, I will. I'll come back in the morning, and if no one's objected, I'm going to revert the edit. I'd welcome anyone else's opinion, of course, but I expect it's just Flex and I paying attention at the moment. Jwrosenzweig 22:42, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I think we've resolved enough to withstand another FAC nomination. Flex, if you get the chance, it would be great if you could keep an eye on WP:FAC along with me -- I can handle a lot of the objections, but some of them (like the two Taxman makes) are out of my league, since I don't know what references were used to create the bulk of the article, and I don't know of any other schools of PA. If you don't want to, that's fine, but I'm hoping you and I can finally get this article over the hump and recognized as the solid article it is. Jwrosenzweig 21:05, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
From the article: "any opponents of presuppositional apologetics would characterize the presuppositional argument as resting on a belief in the Bible as the source of truth because it is inspired by God, in whom we can believe because the Bible affirms it and the Bible is the source of truth. While some logicians accept tautology as a legitimate form of argument, most find it impossible to counter, since each premise is only acceptable if the other premise is also found acceptable."
The presuppositional argument given is not a tautology. It can not be reduced to a logical form that can shown to be true regardless of the truth of its parts. The actual problem with this argument is that each of its premises is supported solely by the other. This is circular reasoning rather than a tautology. As for tautologies, they are not necessary to counter since they are true regardless of the truth of the individual statements that comprise them and have nothing to do with their acceptability.
I suggest changing the characterization of the argument to one of circular reasoning rather than as a tautology. Comments?
-- Sancho McCann 20:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Is is just me, or is this article rather long? Mdotley 22:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I think we need more refs in the "Circulaity" section which has none at present, and only skates the surface of some profound issues. Also why on earth is there no mention of Alvin Plantinga who is arguably the greatest living philosopher in this stream NBeale 17:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
As a result of a discussion at WP:FAR initiated by Flex, I went through the article, adding {{fact}} tags, and then cataloging the tags present. Below I include a list of all fact tags in the article at present, in order. I'm hoping some folks will resolve a tag or two, and strike them from the list, so we can strengthen the article and comply with WP:ATT. Thanks! Jwrosenzweig 01:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I went through and revamped much of the article: consolidating redundant points, copyedits for clarity or succinctness, and provided a whole slew of citations to eliminate most of the fact tags as per the FAR list (still several in the Clark section -- I'm not overly familiar with Clark so I left those for someone who is). I put a working draft as a subpage of my user page, here. Please comment or correct. » MonkeeSage « 22:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Ok... I am a college student at a private Bible college and have taken many Bible classes. I read this article and I can barely understand anything! This article is most definitely written at a doctorate level and not at an encyclopedic level. I was able to gather the information that I needed after reading it several times but really - this is the kind of stuff that I would find in one of my thick Biblical studies books. This article seriously needs some language simplification - I doubt that nearly anyone not involved in Biblical studies could understand much from this article.
--
Borisborf (
talk)
04:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
A common criticism of this kind of apologetics is that it employs philosophical rhetoric which is akin to fideism. For instance, you could have the same kind of presuppositional apologetics with Communist ideology, preaching Marx's manifesto as if every one already knew exactly what it was. ADM ( talk) 15:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Surely something so influential on Christian thought should have been roundly criticized by some pretty respected philosophers, but I see no section on this. I read through the article (rather quickly, I admit), but didn't find criticisms buried within the parts of the sections, either.
Anyone have the knowledge to fill in this gap?
* Septegram* Talk* Contributions* 03:43, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
After reading through this, I also found it strange that the article lacks a criticism section (especially since presuppositional apologetics is simply a sleight of hand trick and lacks the substantive value of a true argument, being nothing more than a bare assertion accompanied by circular reasoning). It might also be helpful to include some information about how presuppositional apologetics came into vogue (namely that christian apologists could no longer rely on logic (classical apologetics) or evidence (empirical apologetics) to support their claims, so they tried to attack the concept of logic itself). Skberry889 ( talk) 01:39, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
1. The problem of hard solipsism. To my knowledge this well recognized problem in epistemology has yet to be solved, yet Presuppositional Apologists (PAs for short) seem to think they've found the solution. Somebody must address this in order to have a functioning, quality wikipedia page on PA. 2. The problem of other minds. See above 3. Objective reality. Does it exist, how can you know for sure? See above. 4. Absolute truth. Does it exist, what does it mean, are there more definitions that need treatment? 5. Logical absolutes. What are they, do they exist, what do they refer to, etc.
This list is, of course, just a few of the issues and ideas PA attempts to solve/prove/justify. I've yet to hear anything close to a satisfying treatment of these issues/ideas by PA (other than "They exist and I know this because of Yahweh" or something to that effect). Also, as for my "own personal bias against the Christian worldview," I don't think it adequate to call it a "bias." I simply have never heard or seen (or otherwise encountered) any evidence to support the notion that the Christian worldview is indeed the correct one, and "God did it" is (or should be) insufficient to sway any person on this issue. Then of course, there is a difference between my being unconvinced by any arguments (generally) for the Christian worldview, and the PA argument specifically. One could say I am biased against this argument, inasmuch as I find it intellectually insulting and dishonest to simply assert that Yahweh exists and accuse everybody else of "borrowing from the Christian worldview by using reason, logic and empirical evidence. Thomists and evidentiary apologists aren't dishonest to the degree of PA. PAs don't argue or have debates, they simply take a few ideas from any Epistemology 101 course book, assert that Yahweh provides an adequate foundation, and accuse any naysayer of "borrowing" logic and empirical sensations from their worldview. The current criticism portion of this page is inadequate, as there are many fallacies inherent in PA, and begging the question is just one. I find it reasonable to infer, Ischus, that you haven't considered or contemplated PA to the fullest extent (and I mean no offense when I say this, as most people are not well versed in epistemology (which, incidentally, is why PA seems so satisfying at first glance, but when examined more fully, it is not simply insufficient, but intellectually insulting)), but, like all inferences, I could be wrong. I respectfully request that you research and consider the underlying concepts of PA before shrugging off anybody noting inconsistency and intellectual dishonesty by suggesting that they are blinded by their bias. I think you'll find PA less satisfying when you do. I also request somebody more fully versed in epistemology (and philosophy in general) than myself to ponder PA and weigh in with any possible criticism. My bias against PA is clear in its origin: PA is sophistry (mostly consisting of assertions, equivocation, and evasion), nothing more, nothing less. This fact doesn't preclude the existence of any deity, and I find it reasonable to think that most Christians would be appalled by PA, but again, this is just an inference, and I could be wrong about it. Skberry889 ( talk) 20:00, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Without starting an actual discussion on the subject matter in this comment's title, I feel that this article would be more illuminating if it contained examples of how non-Christians behaved as if Christianity were true. The uniformity of nature example seems a bit weak, and I'd wager that there are more concrete examples since Van Til is considered a notable philosopher. Is there a subject matter expert out there that could elaborate on this tenet? Erik Carson ( talk) 05:21, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Is there something wrong with the second paragraph? It seems to contradict itself. Misty MH ( talk) 00:03, 12 May 2021 (UTC)