Presuppositionalism eventually collapses into evidentialism
I have not been convinced of the superiority of presuppositional apologetics for two main reasons. The first is that I believe natural theology and classical apologetics are biblical, based on Acts 17 and Romans 1. That’s been written about a lot. The second reason is my real intellectual hurdle, which is the presuppositionalist methodology for selecting the Bible as their axiom.
Why select the Bible as an axiom?
Presup claims that it starts with the presuppositions of worldviews and shows that the Christian worldview with the Bible as its axiom is the only one that makes sense of the world. Gordon Clark in An Introduction to Christian Philosophy shows that secular philosophies like empiricism and rationalism are not valid presuppositions in that they cannot ground logic and intelligibility. He proposes that the last possible presupposition is revelation. Revelation requires an axiom.
The single axiom is: The Bible is the Word of God. But though single, it is fruitful because there is embedded in it the law of contradiction, plus the nature of God, as argued above, plus the thousands of propositions thus declared true (Gordon Clark, Christian Philosophy, 320).
The law of contradiction is not to be taken as an axiom prior to or independent of God. The law is God thinking [...] God and logic are one and the same first principle, for John wrote that Logic was God (Clark, 305).
The axiom of verbal revelation, starting with propositional truth, is not embarrassed by the difficulty of developing perception out of a pre-perceptual state of mind, or of constructing concepts out of perceptual images [...] The postulate of verbal revelation is an epistemological success because the revelation is itself knowledge (Clark, 324).
Here we see that the Bible, when used as our axiom, can provide the foundation for reason and make sense of our perceptions because logic and truth are embedded within the axiom of revelation itself. This allows us to accurately interpret the Bible and know other true things about the world.
But why the Bible? That seems like a convenient starting point. Clark inadvertently admits to using some transcendent criteria by which he evaluates worldviews:
Axioms, whatever they may be and in whatever subject they are used, are never deduced from more original principles. They are always tested in another way [...] We must ask, Does revelation make knowledge possible? Does revelation establish values and ethical norms? Does revelation give a theory of politics? And are all these results consistent with one another? We can judge the acceptability of an axiom only by its success in producing a system (Clark, 299).
Clark doesn’t fully explain how he arrived at these criteria, which ironically seem to require “original principles,” but we’ll use them. Clark requires an axiom to be able to produce a “system,” and I’d summarize by saying the system has to have the following properties: (1) self-authentication, (2) foundation for knowledge, (3) internal consistency, and (4) explanatory power. The Bible fulfills these requirements.
Self-authentication. The Bible says God is perfect (Ps. 18:30), and the words of the Bible are inspired directly by God (2 Tim. 3:16−17), therefore the Bible is perfectly self-authenticating. (This may raise questions about the canon, but that’s beyond the scope of this essay.)
Foundation for knowledge. God is unchanging and created the universe and everything in it, and makes logic possible (Gen. 1:1, John 1:1). God also makes the universe intelligible: the fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge (Prov. 1:7).
Internal consistency. Despite being written over thousands of years and by many different authors, the Bible maintains a central message. (Dealing with apparent contradictions is also out of scope.)
Explanatory power. The Bible does produce a consistent system, or worldview, which answers the most important questions of life, providing a cosmology and system of ethics and theory of politics and many other instructions on how to live.
If we’ve established that the four criteria above are good criteria, what happens if something other than the Bible also fulfills them?
Another text?
Let’s say one day I am on a walk, and I stumble upon a large diamond tablet. It is inscribed with the following text:
The Eternal Source is perfect in essence, infinite in wisdom and beauty, beyond all bounds, untouched by time or space. It is the fount of all being, the wellspring of all that lives and breathes and flows. All that is, both seen and unseen, is born of Its boundless power. The cosmos was not spun in perfection, but in the unfolding of time, it turns ever toward the balance of the Source. Each moment, each breath, joins in the sacred dance of creation, according to the timeless design of the Source. The stars above and the rivers below, the smallest of creatures and the grandest of beings, all flow together in the current of the eternal.
Truth, unyielding and unchanging, springs forth from the Source. It is the beacon that lights the heavens and the heart, the thread that weaves through the fabric of all that is known and yet to be discovered. From this truth arises all knowledge and reason. It is the foundation of understanding, the pulse to which all creation moves. The principles of logic and morality echo this eternal truth. The path of harmony and balance is made known through this scripture, infused with the eternal truth of the Source.
The mind of humankind is a vessel designed to receive this truth. In the stillness of the soul, it reveals itself more fully. As the flower turns to the sun, so does the soul bend toward wisdom. In each thought, in each discovery, the seeds of the wisdom of the Source take root. The journey of knowing is not bound by time or choice, for it unfolds in perfect accord with the eternal design. To seek knowledge is to draw closer to the rhythm of the universe, to harmonize with the order that governs all things.
In the Eternal Source, there is neither good nor evil, save in the degree to which one aligns with the sacred balance. That which flows in unity with this order is good, for it brings forth peace and stability. That which diverges from the path stirs discord, breeding suffering and confusion. Yet even in the depths of disorder, there is no force that rivals the Source. Discord is but a shadow, a fleeting absence of the light that ever seeks to restore the whole. What seems broken will be mended, and what is cast in shadow shall be brought into the light of the greater good.
Compassion is the guiding star, the compass by which one navigates the world. Harm none, for to cause harm is to strike against the balance that binds all things together. Let kindness flow from your heart like the rivers to the sea, gentle and unceasing, for in such virtues the order of the universe is made known. Though your steps are set by the course of the cosmos, the wisdom of the Source calls you ever toward love. Regard all beings with the reverence due to those bound by the same sacred thread. Seek always the harmony of the cosmos, let your thoughts be in tune with its rhythm, and let your heart beat with the pulse of the universe.
As you walk the path of compassion, so too shall you find harmony within the community of humankind. Each person is a thread in the fabric of life, and the well-being of one affects the whole. The bonds between souls mirror the larger web that links all creation. In your dealings with others, seek always to restore balance and foster peace. Let there be respect and understanding among all, for within each heart dwells the light of the Source. Some are called to guide others, not to wield power, but to serve and tend the well-being of all. When trust is maintained and wisdom guides, the community thrives in peace, but when selfishness or division takes root, the path is lost, and renewal is needed to restore balance.
The Earth is a treasure, bestowed upon all by the Eternal Source. In its forests, its mountains, its seas, the order of creation is revealed. The animals that roam the earth, the birds that soar the heavens, and the waters that cradle the life within them move in concert with the design that sustains all things. To care for the Earth is to honor the Source. To waste, to destroy, to defile is to sever the harmony that sustains all life. Protect the waters, tend to the land, and cherish the creatures of the earth, for they too are part of the sacred balance. Each tree, each river, each life plays its role, and all are necessary for the greater whole.
When the body fades and the breath of life returns to the Source, it is not an end but a sacred homecoming. The soul does not perish but is drawn once more into the eternal flow. Death is not darkness, but a return to the light from which it sprang. All lives, whether brief as a morning flower or long as the ancient oaks, are threads in the great design, each fulfilling its purpose. What was discordant in life shall be made whole in the afterglow of the eternal order. The sufferings of life, born of misunderstanding and discord, are but passing shadows. In time, all ignorance will be dispelled, and all hearts shall be attuned to the eternal harmony. The soul, like a pilgrim, journeys ever closer to the Source, ever nearer to the perfect union with the divine in eternity.
Though the world may tremble with suffering, though shadows may fall and hearts may falter, the greater design of the Eternal Source is ever at work. The Source knows all things and all thoughts. Nothing can stand against the order of the Source, for all that exists moves in concert with Its perfect will. Though the road may be long, the journey is sure, for all shall return to the Source, and all shall find peace in the perfect unity of the eternal.
This scripture is self-authenticating and internally consistent, claims to be divine and truthful, and has strong explanatory power. I think it produces a good system: it explains the world well, gives moral instructions, and is pretty minimalist. It certainly provides a better worldview than atheism! Now I have good reason to believe in my new scripture as my axiom of revelation.
Collapse into evidentialism
I appreciate presuppositionalism because it is pretty devastating against atheism. But it has trouble when comparing amongst theistic worldviews. Christian presup apologists engage with other religions by evaluating them on their own grounds and proving that they are contradictory or do not give good enough reason to believe in them. This often seems like the weakest part of presup, because for the most part, these engagements seem mostly superficial.
If we treat my scripture like a religion and compare it against our criteria, it actually becomes pretty hard to knock down in my opinion. It is simpler than the Bible. We have no baggage relying on historical claims, or potential contradictions in those historical claims. We don’t need to trust the human authors, scribes, archaeologists, and translators who have transmitted the text to us. It avoids the problem of textual variants or determining the canon, both of which also pose some difficulties for presups. There is also a clear, unified message, which avoids most ethical controversies that the Bible runs into in modern times.
As far as I can tell, any presup defense that would work for the Bible would also work for my scripture. The things that supposedly make Christianity win out against all other religions are present in the worldview of my scripture. If I was told by a presup that, actually, what you’re doing is suppressing the truth in unrighteousness, I could just respond by saying: it is in fact you who are confused, because your Christian teachings are just a manifestation of the truth of the Eternal Source; without the Eternal Source you wouldn’t have the capacity to even engage in this debate.
A presup could rely on the larger explanatory power of the Bible, or specific positive propositions the Bible contains, like the presence of the Holy Spirit or heaven and hell, and say that those things go unexplained in my scripture. But that doesn’t work, because those things are not self-evident and are based on expectations which require belief in the Bible to begin with. Any standard which they judge my scripture on is coming from their own presuppositions and not honestly engaging with my scripture and evaluating it on its own grounds.
Finally, they could take a step back and respond to this by saying that my scripture is clearly fictional. Nobody believes in my scripture. It’s not revelation, I just wrote it myself, so it has no divine origin. But this would be bringing in too much external context, and an example of a special pleading fallacy. The Bible was also written by men. The evidence for the divine origin of the Bible is contained within the text itself; you have to look at the content to find that the Bible does claim to be divinely inspired. Using that same standard, my scripture passes that test too.
We see that perhaps Clark’s standard for accepting an axiom of revelation is too broad, and not sufficient for establishing absolute truth. The presup method falters when it encounters a worldview that contains the most important claims said to be unique to the Bible. There must be positive reasons provided for why the Bible is distinct, and better than my diamond scripture. At this point, I think the presup apologist has to turn to evidence to support the acceptability of the Bible. Presuppositionalists will say we should not do this, because it is giving up ground by implicitly assuming a worldview other than that of Christianity. But I think my scripture shows that presup still needs to make arguments for the Bible’s value from a neutral point of view.
Thankfully the Bible can be defended with reason. Classical apologetics offers many arguments for God and for the truth claims of Christianity. By defending the reliability of the gospel manuscripts and the historicity of the resurrection, the Bible can be shown to provide the best explanation of the world. From here the apologist can still use a presuppositional approach to dismantle other worldviews, while acknowledging that their axiom was derived through evidence and reason (reason being possible because of God). What started as a presup defense eventually had to fall back to evidentialist arguments to defend its axiom as God’s revelation. But this isn’t bad! The evidence is strong! However, because presup eventually collapses into evidentialism, I believe classical apologetics provides a more robust framework for proving Christianity true.