Presuppositional Apologetics

What's a Presupposition?

pre·sup·po·si·tion
/ˌprēˌsəpəˈziSH(ə)n/
noun: presupposition; plural noun: presuppositions
a thing tacitly assumed beforehand, or taken for granted, at the beginning of a line of argument.
synonyms: presumption, assumption, preconception, supposition, first-principle, premise, postulation

Why Should I Care?

Everyone has presuppositions -- ideas or assumptions they take for granted. They may be true or they may be false, but everyone has them. Often we assume that others share our presuppositions, but frequently they don't. Being able to recognize one's own hidden assumptions and those of other people can be very helpful in understanding why people come to differing conclusions and can help prevent us from committing logical fallacies or errors in our thinking.

Analysing the most basic first-principles of any worldview, faith, or religion is one of the fastest ways to discern if that worldview is true or false. Sometimes, when the presuppositions are actually considered, the errors in the view are blatant and undeniable.

How Does This Work?

Presuppositional apologetics involves a very simple procedure or method. Any specific application of the method may be difficult or get complicated, but the method itself is very simple. It involves two steps, one offensive and the other defensive.

1. Offense: Internally analyse the non-Christian's worldview and show how it is contradictory.
2. Defense: Internally analyse the Christian worldview and show how it is consistent.

Notice that each worldview must be internally analysed. A worldview can't be analysed from the outside. To analyse it from the outside is to assume things that it doesn't assume. This leads to what is known as "straw-men fallacies", where the worldview is mischaracterized while it is being investigated.

Nobody wants that.

Many people want to look at evidence before accepting a worldview. But evidence is always understood based upon one's worldview, not the other way around. If we interpret evidence according to our own view in order to investigate someone else's view, we'll never actually see their view for what it is.

A full presuppositional apologetic involves both offensive and defensive steps, but sometimes only one or the other step is needed. Generally, in a one-on-one conversation with a non-Christian, employing both steps is very important. But good offensive and defensive arguments can also stand alone.

Examples: On the Offense

Each of these examples are just intended to be one piece of a conversation with a non-Christian, to assist the Christian in pointing out problems with the non-Christian's perspective. None of these particular examples are proofs of Christianity -- they just argue against forms of non-Christianity.

Deductive Argument that Atheism is False

Atheists presuppose two things that are in fact mutually exclusive: they cannot both be true. The first is that their own conclusions are rationally justified, and the second is that there is no sovereign rational creator. The combination of these two presuppositions makes the worldview of the atheist inherently contradictory.
Read more

Deductive Argument that Polytheism is False

Polytheists also presuppose two things that are mutually exclusive. The first is that non-contradiction is both universal and invariant, and the second is that there are multiple sovereign creators. But as Socrates pointed out in Plato's Euthyphro, the combination of these two presuppositions makes the worldview of the polytheist completely incoherent.
Read more

Deductive Argument that Pantheism is False

Pantheists likewise presuppose two things that are mutually exclusive. The first is that their own conclusions about the present are rationally justified, and the second is that multiple entities share absolute ultimacy, much like polytheists. These two views, however, cannot both be true.
Read more

Deductive Argument that Unitarianism is False

Unitarians, too, presuppose two things that are mutually exclusive. The first is that their version of god is rational. The second is that his ultimate reason for his actions is not himself. As the proof demonstrates, this makes unitarianism incoherent.
Read more

Gilbert Guttlebocker, Defender of Dragons

Riveting, yet absurd; romantic, yet innocent; Gilbert Guttlebocker, Defender of Dragons is a little Roald Dahl, a little Harry Potter, and a little Chronicles of Narnia, all rolled into one. Timothy McCabe collaborates with the great Benedict Ballyhoot to bring you the novel of the century!

 

In Printed Form

Along with numerous other authors including Don Landis, Bodie Hodge and Roger Patterson, Timothy McCabe contributes analyses of various world religions and cults in this volume from Master Books.