Actually, I was holding it up as an example of how NOT to do presuppositional apologetics. Wilson makes the mistake of emphasizing presuppositionalist distinctives when he should have been simply debating.
First of all, it is really important for a presuppositional apologist to do his or her homework on epistemic circularity. Van Til's writings on this matter have apparently confused not only his enemies (ro whom it looks as if they can easily refute him) but his followers as well.
Second, I am not sure that the transcendental argument from reason supports specifically Christian theism, or whether if your opponent is, say, a unitarian theist of some kind, there is some other transcendental argument that applies. If that's true, you should probably avoid saying that the TA from reason actually establishes trinitarian theism.
It may be that Lewis's apologetics as a whole supports an Anglican-Arminian understanding of Christianity, but that AFR strikes me as pretty neutral between that view and the classical Reformed theology that underwrites presuppositional apologetics.
I also think that the Van Tilian emphasis on suppressing the truth is a respectable and intelligent position for which biblical support can be given. I do not think that the rhetorical statement that there are really no atheists is equally respectable. I think people who say the latter are really trying to say the former; if so, just say the former and avoid embarrassing your own message by saying the latter.
1 comment:
Dr. Reppert,
You said, "I also think that the Van Tilian emphasis on suppressing the truth is a respectable and intelligent position for which biblical support can be given. I do not think that the rhetorical statement that there are really no atheists is equally respectable. I think people who say the latter are really trying to say the former; if so, just say the former and avoid embarrassing your own message by saying the latter."
Not that this makes this position any more correct, but I think that this position (the NA thesis) can definitely be used to defend against certain atheists that attempt to thwart the burden of proof. I know you have written on the NA thesis but I didn't see where this 'benefit' was mentioned (I could've missed it is my haste). They will usually say something to the effect that they have a *lack* of belief and therefore no burden. Paul Manata has written on this at his blogsite and it is worth considering.
Post a Comment