Debating Athiests with presuppositionalism

Wilson introduces presuppositionalism to Hitchens

by jhg @ http://www.inlightofthegospel.org

When I was studying philosophy during my undergraduate days, I would not be exaggerating to say that Cornelius Van Til [see the Van Til web-site] and his apologetic known as persuppositionalism literally saved my convictions (and faith) on several occasions. During struggles with both theory and faith, many of Van Til’s arguments for the Christian faith were very influential in developing my “worldview.”

In the process of studying presuppositionalism, Greg Bahnsen’s introductory book on presuppositionalism is a great place to start, but be sure to move on to his large book on Van Til’s apologetics because it is as comprehensive as they come. At the risk of frustrating some, I might as well admit that I benefited from John Frame’s book on apologetics and Van Til .

One of the more helpful resources in pulling some of the loose threads together and seeing how it works practically is the so-called “Great Debate” between Greg Bahnsen and Gordon Stein. This was the first time I had heard someone use presuppositionalism in a debate format, and Bahnsen did it as well as anyone else.

Now you can see it worked out practically in the current debate between Doug Wilson and Christopher Hitchens over at Christianity Today. In this first round, Wilson is giving Hitchens an introduction to the basics of presuppositionalism. He is forcing Hitchens to come to terms with his own [i.e., Hitchens] presuppositions, and Wilson is pointing out each step along the way how Hitchens cannot make the claims he is making given his own worldview.

Notice a few of Wilson’s questions:

But why should this “damnation by history” matter to any of us reading Bible stories to kids, or, for that matter, to any of the people who did any of these atrocious things, on your principles?

Or again, Wilson says,

On your principles, why should he care?

Now notice the wave of questions at the end of Wilson’s exchange:

Given your atheism, what account are you able to give that would require us to respect the individual? How does this individualism of yours flow from the premises of atheism? Why should anyone in the outside world respect the details of your thought life any more than they respect the internal churnings of any other given chemical reaction? That’s all our thoughts are, isn’t that right? Or, if there is a distinction, could you show how the premises of your atheism might produce such a distinction?

Wilson is forcing Hitchens to come to terms with his own presuppositions, and Wilson is going to argue that Hitchens cannot give a satisfactory answers to these questions without borrowing from the Christian worldview.

Let us attend to Presuppositionalism 101.

The Gospel & Presuppositionalism

Tim Keller says in his article “Post-everythings” that presuppositionalism provides us with the tools we need to engage our culture with the gospel. The use of the gospel brings up another very important aspect of presuppositionalism.

One of the things I remember from Bahnsen’s debate [see previous post] is that he continued to challenge Stein’s unbelief.Arguing from the perspective of presuppositionalism gave Bahnsen the opportunity to present the gospel in a unique setting in order to explain belief and unbelief while calling for faith.

Notice how in the current “frank exchange of views” Wilson does not back away from his commitments in this debate in order to prove something about theism in general. He is concerned to demonstrate that Christian Trinitarianism is the only possible presupposition that can make sense of our experience in the world. In order to do that, he will challenge Hitchens with the gospel. Wilson says,

The second thing to observe in this regard is that Christians actually do not claim that the gospel has made the world better by bringing us turbo-charged ethical information…the world is not made better because people can understand the ways in which they are being bad. It has to be made better by Good News—we must receive the gift of forgiveness and the resultant ability to live more in conformity to a standard we already knew (but were necessarily failing to meet). So the gospel does not consist of new and improved law. The gospel makes the world better through Good News, not through guilt trips or good advice.

If I might use the title of my blog, Wilson is showing Hitchens that everything changes “in light of the gospel.” We pray that God might change Hitchens heart as well.

Presuppositionalism 102

CT has posted the second part of the debate between Wilson and Hitchens here. I thought we would be able to move on to Presuppositionalism 201, but it seems we need another semester of the basics.

Hitchens completely disregarded Wilson’s questions and presuppositional analysis of his own [Hitchens] thought. He even failed to understand Wilson’s point. Now Wilson is going to come at it another way: through atheistic hypocrisy.

Now my question for you is this: Is there such a thing as atheist hypocrisy? When another atheist makes different ethical choices than you do (as Stalin and Mao certainly did), is there an overarching common standard for all atheists that you are obeying and which they are not obeying?

Wilson has backed Hitchens into a corner. Will he answer this question? Will he condemn the acts of Stalin or Mao? If he does, then why? As an atheist, he simply cannot agree to some “common objective standard” because it doesn’t make sense given his worldview. If he does condemn them, he is being a hypocrite. So Wilson concludes:

And if there is not a common objective standard which binds all atheists, then would it not appear that the supernatural is necessary in order to have a standard of morality that can be reasonably articulated and defended?

This argument by Wilson is really very important. He has moved to atheistic hypocrisy because he is moving toward the gospel. The business at hand is the issue of “intellectual repentance.” So Wilson is addressing his [Hitchens] need for repentance before addressing his need for Christ as Savior. The gospel is at work in presuppositionalism even from the beginning of the debate because presuppositionalism shows the contradictions of atheism, the hypocrisy of atheistic thought.

Then Wilson gives a brief reminder of presuppositionalism 101 and Hitchens intellectual responsibility:

So I am not saying you have to believe in the supernatural in order to live as a responsible citizen. I am saying you have to believe in the supernatural in order to be able to give a rational and coherent account of why you believe yourself obligated to live this way.

Of course you can live a morally upright and ethical life if you do not believe in the supernatural. That is not the purpose of this debate. This debate deals with intellectual and rational reasons why we do what we do. Hitchens cannot give a rational and coherent account of his behavior given his belief system.

In conclusion, Wilson does exactly what he is asking Hitchens to do; Wilson gives a rational basis for the Christian faith. He is demonstrating true Christian love for his neighbor: providing an example to Hitchens of what he needs to do with his own intellectual thought.

The Christian faith is good for the world because it provides the fixed standard which atheism cannot provide and because it provides forgiveness for sins, which atheism cannot provide either. We need the direction of the standard because we are confused sinners. We need the forgiveness because we are guilty sinners. Atheism not only keeps the guilt, but it also keeps the confusion.