Presuppositionalism and Worldview

… continued from Triggermanblog

Getting the Definitions Right

Before going anywhere in the post itself, we need to establish what I consider to be solid, consistent, working definitions of the terms presupposition and worldview so that we have a solid foundation on which to work.

The folks over at Master Class have provided a good definition for the term worldview, defining it as, “someone’s set of answers to all the big questions of life”, adding that this can be constructed either at the individual level–in a sort of smorgasbord approach–or it can be corporately structured, what we one might call a “religion”. They add that a worldview has a number of elements: anthropology, cosmology, epistemology, metaphysics, and ethics, among others.

It has been suggested that a worldview can be treated like either a pair of glasses or sunshades: it either brings the world into focus or it gives the world a certain hue. Another example is that it functions like a pair of contact lenses: unnoticed and often taken for granted.[1]

It’s what is taken for granted that is a presupposition, the common ground of things not already established.[2] There are certain things that we simply assume when we prepare to engage, such as: up is not down and right is not left. We assume that differences exist and that words have a set meaning.[3] But there are other assumptions that we have that go beyond language that are simply taken for granted, something Pastor Glen Scrivener speaks about here.

To that end we can say that a worldview is largely composed of those things which we simply assume about the world, or as G.K. Chesterton has so deftly put it,

But there are some people, nevertheless—and I am one of them—who think that the most practical and important thing about a man is still his view of the universe. We think that for a landlady considering a lodger, it is important to know his income, but still more important to know his philosophy. We think that for a general about to fight an enemy, it is important to know the enemy's numbers, but still more important to know the enemy's philosophy. We think the question is not whether the theory of the cosmos affects matters, but whether in the long run, anything else affects them.[4]

As Chesterton rightly identifies, how a person sees the world and his place in it tells us a lot about the person, regardless of our relationship to them, because a worldview serves various purposes.

Back to the Topic

Alex pulls no punches as he begins, writing,

In presuppositional apologetics, you often hear people using the term ‘worldview’, as in ‘x is true on the Christian worldview’ or ‘on the atheist worldview you can’t say that’ etc. 

Here we see that a certain presupposition is already in play: that one knows what “presuppositional apologetics” are. The folks over at Got Questions? have defined this as, “an approach to apologetics which aims to present a rational basis for the Christian faith and defend it against objections by exposing the logical flaws of other worldviews and hence demonstrating that biblical theism is the only worldview which can make consistent sense of reality.” 

I suppose it would help to define the term “apologetics”, which comes from a word that means “a speech in defense”. Most often this term is applied to Christians who have engaged in public debate in defense of the faith, such as William Lane Craig, the late Greg Bahnsen, and more recently, Dr. James R. White, Pastor Jeff Durbin, and–almost infamously–Sye Ten Bruggencate.

If one goes through my blog, they will also see that I have engaged in a few apologetic exercises, so I guess that I would be included in this, though I would not consider myself an apologist in strictly professional terms.

Getting back to Alex, he asks, “what is a worldview?”

In order to answer this question, Alex proposes two “dilemmas”, positing that to answer the question the answer to his question lies along two branches. The first he gives is that a “worldview” is, “[the] set of everything believed by a given person,” while the second is, “[beliefs] about things like metaphysics, epistemology, and morality (etc), which are coherent and collectively offer a ‘big picture’ explanation of everything around us.”

Thinking through these two possibilities, I can’t help but notice that they are essentially a distinction without a difference as these are essentially two ways of describing the same thing. After all, when we talk about the “set of everything believed” we are necessarily including our beliefs about “metaphysics, epistemology, and morality (etc)”. They might not be expressed but they are implied. 

Analyzing the Analysis 

Alex turns to examine the implications of the “horns” of this “dilemma” by saying of the first that it’s true that if limited to the first definition then it’s true that everyone has a worldview if “all a worldview consists in is this set of beliefs” a person has. 

He contends that, “there is no expectation that this set is coherent or comprehensive. Perhaps two beliefs contradict one another. Perhaps there are topics about which someone has never formed any belief whatsoever.”

In terms of presuppositionalism, the concern is not about the beliefs that one doesn’t have. Rather it’s concerned with the foundation of any of one’s beliefs. More importantly it’s concerned with the coherence of beliefs as it’s in the recognition that there’s an inconsistency and incoherence of beliefs that the recognition of God as the foundation of knowledge lies.[5]

That might sound like I’m assuming something and you’d be correct: I’m assuming the existence of God as the necessary precondition for intelligibility. 

This is much more than an abstract axiomatic starting point. It’s a firm foundation from which one can build a worldview that has the ability to justify laws of logic, uniformity in nature, and moral principles. 

In fact, in my exchange with Alex, in the peak of his complaint about original sin, I pressed him on why it mattered if atheism is true. 

This is the touch point for questioning a worldview. If coherence or consistency is a concern for a position to be true, it comes down to the question of, what is true and how do you know it?

And that’s a question that goes back to what can be called the Big Three foundations: reason, observation, and ethics. All are founded upon truth. 

The Christian lives in light of revelation, the revelation that God’s word is truth (Jn 17:17), it defines what is true, what is real, what is good.

The objection is of course that I’m appealing to the Bible. To which I answer, yes, and?

Turning back to Alex’s analysis, he writes,

I would think that any person whatsoever that we consider would have some inconsistencies in their beliefs. Who among us can genuinely say they know they have no hidden conflicts between any two beliefs? I discover such confusions in my own beliefs all the time. …You don’t get any prizes for showing me that I don’t have everything worked out. I’ll admit that if you ask me, and I’m pretty confident the same applies to you, whoever you are.

I guess it’s a good thing that a specific SAT score isn’t required to enter the presence of God. In fact the only thing required is absolute perfection. 

I’ll be the first to admit that I’m far from perfect in many respects. But I’m also living in the hope of Christ, as my advocate, and that his righteousness has been apportioned to me. But, again, that goes back to my starting point: the revelation of God. 

And while Alex claims that, “merely showing that someone’s ‘worldview’ harbours some incoherence or lacks some explanatory power is no big achievement,” in actuality it reeks of some serious levels of cope because it’s in the showing where the faults lie that one finds the entry point. 

For example, someone says that they believe that the world is not real, however their inconsistency is shown when they pull out their umbrella to walk in the rain. 

Alex then turns to his second “dilemma”, writing,

We can imagine a ‘worldview’ as being a fully consistent and comprehensive system. One that has answers for every question and where every belief is consistent with every other belief.

The question that the presuppositionalist asks isn’t whether or not the worldview has every answer for every question, but whether or not one is right to believe that there are answers for any question.

A Problem of Generalization 

Alex contends that the problem for presuppositionalism isn’t necessarily in coherence or comprehensiveness, but in its tendency toward generalization, and the question of whether there can be any specific worldview called “atheistic” instead of seeing a worldview “as if it is a non-personal system that anyone could adopt.”

Alex’s complaint is that it is essentially impossible for anyone to have an all encompassing worldview that at least has the potential to answer questions. For him, nothing can be generalized, that is, he’s suggesting it’s not possible to classify a person’s worldview as either “theistic” or “atheistic”. He further suggests that answers to “big questions” are out of the reach of the average person. 

But, again, is that what the presuppositionalist, specifically the Christian presuppositionalist is asking?

He says that, “it’s not plausible to suppose that everyone has a worldview.”

How does Alex know what is “plausible”, given his assumption of atheism?

If we are going to take his subjective position, I can simply assert that it is perfectly plausible to assume that everyone has a worldview. That plausibility doesn’t require that every aspect must be considered or expressed in ordered logic because that’s not what presuppositions are. 

Contrary to his assertion, the Christian assertion is that, “there is no area in the world, in thought, in word, or in deed which is irrelevant, indifferent, or neutral toward God and His demands.”[6]

Conclusion 

Alex wants to paint the presuppositionalist as if he is trapped in a cult, but the Christian position is that to even be able to define something as “cultish” requires a coherent and consistent worldview. 

Alex has painted himself into a philosophical corner making any number of assumptions that his own worldview cannot account for—logically or morally—exposing that he is presupposing things that can only be justified in the world in which God exists.

This world. 

The world God has made and sustains. 

The world where God demands that all men repent and submit to his Son, the Lord Jesus Christ. 

Notes

1. David Naugle. “Worldview: Definitions, History, and Importance of a Concept”. Link.
2. Chris Potts. “Presupposition”. Link.
3. Not denying the fact that context often informs meaning.
4. G. K. Chesterton. Heretics. p. 7 (Kindle)
5. Greg Bahnsen. Presuppositional Apologetics: Stated and Defended. American Vision Press. 2011. p.56-7 (ePub)
6. —. Always Ready: Directions for Defending the Faith. Covenant Media Press. 2011. p.34