The Socratic Dictum

I would like to thank my good friend Steve Hoover for telling me about this video.

Here is one of the best discussions and critiques of the presuppositional apologetic method I have seen in a long time. Dr. Jordan Cooper and Dr. Nathan Greeley are Lutheran scholars who seek to revive the Lutheran scholastic method and corresponding classical approach to apologetics.

For about twenty years I have made the point, much to the disappointment of my presuppositional friends, that the presuppositional method is nothing more than Kantian idealism. This video does a very good job of explaining why that is the case. (Note: Dr. Greeley uses the term anti-realism for Kantian idealism, both anti-realism and idealism hold the position that the mind is ultimate in determining reality. So when they speak of anti-realism, they are essentially talking about idealism.)

Idealism is an error because we do not determine reality. Therefore, philosophy and Christian apologetics must start with metaphysics, the nature of reality as it is, and not with theories of knowledge (epistemology). Our knowledge of reality, does not objectively determine reality. Our theories of reality can be wrong.

A couple of terms to know before going into the discussion.

Presuppositionalism (which I have found a few Lutherans to be adherents of) is the idea that mankind is so fallen (due to the noetic effects of sin) that there is no possible intellectual commonality between the Christian apologist and the non-Christian. There is no place for the ministerial use of reason. The apologist must first assume the truth of the existence of God and the reliability of the Bible as the proper starting point for doing apologetics. In other words, the apologist must presuppose the very things his non-theistic friend rejects in the first place.

One thing Dr. Cooper and Dr. Greeley could have pointed out is the circularity of the presuppositional approach. This is a logical fallacy which is formally called the petitio principii (begging of the question). This is an error that occurs when the conclusion of an argument is already present, usually disguised or vague, in the premises. It is seen as circular because the conclusion is present in the premises, and no real progress is made. (I am aware of Van Til’s and Frame’s response to this critique, but that should really be another post. It is enough to say, here, that when one reasons with correct premises and conclusions, a good and valid rational argument is a virtue and an expression of the ministerial use of reason. Rationality is not an intellectual or moral failing.)

Another term that comes up in the discussion is realism. In metaphysics, realism is the doctrine that Forms, or essences, possess objective reality. In modern philosophy, realism is the concept (contrasted with idealism) that physical objects exist independently of perception, the mind, or theory of reality. For realists, theories of reality, theories of knowledge, and perceptions are logically separate from objective reality itself.

Regarding realism, the name was given to a certain philosophic way of thought first inaugurated by Plato and Aristotle, developed and refined in the Middle Ages, and still living at the present time. This view includes three basic theses: 1. The world is made up of substantial beings really related to one another, which exist independently of any human opinions or desires. Reality is objective. 2. These substances and relations which make up the world can be known by the human mind as they are in themselves. 3. Such knowledge can offer sound and immutable guidance (the law of nature) for individual and social action.

Christian theology, philosophy, and apologetics should always start with a firm understanding of realism. As Dr. Cooper and Dr. Greeley point out, the Lutheran Scholastics understood this point very well.

I could say more but this discussion is too important and just fantastic. Enjoy.