A Case Study in Presuppositionalism and Empiricist Atheism: A Brief Response to Staks Rosch

This is a quick refutation of Philadelphia’s Atheist examiner on presuppositional apologetics, Staks Rosch, as I read it for the first time:

Various forms of Presupposition Theology

Well, it’s not even five words into the essay and I’m already a bit confused. Doesn’t he mean “presuppositional apologetics”? Granted, presuppositional apologetics is based off of biblical theology (see Bahnsen’s Always Ready, etc.). But, I’m still a bit suspicious as to what’s coming…

have become all the rage with theists lately.

Hahahaha. Yeah…especially Geisler, Caner, Howe, Craig, and the vast majority of evangelicalism. Sigh. Presuppositionalism has always been in the minority, and while it is growing in some arenas, it is being more thoroughly attacked in others. Presuppositionalism in mainstream or even more focused denominational Christianity is not “all the rage.” It’s hardly known, if we think in the general terms Rosch is using….

The concept, simply put is that Christians must presuppose the truth of the Bible.

Well, that’s one of them. There’s alot more (i.e. Christians should have a biblical apologetic methodology, and thus, Christians should not seek to be religiously neutral, transcendental arguments are the norm instead of the exception, etc.)

Christians who subscribe to the presupposition concept tend to argue that atheists take reason as a presupposition and on faith. They further argue that reason presupposes a God. In other words, the reason for reason is God.

I think this is generally true, if I’m understanding it correctly. The “reason” for anything is God. That’s the theistic, consistent reading of the Scriptures: God is the Creator, He is sovereign, and He reigns.

It is not uncommon to hear a Christian ask an atheist about the foundation of reason these days. Why do atheists presuppose that everything has a naturalistic, logical reason? In a recent discussion with a Christian friend this very topic came up. The question was asked, “Who created the laws of physics?” My Christian friend went on to say that science depends on the laws of physics remaining constant and so atheists have faith that this is the case.

Atheists have no explanation of natural phenomena and the preconditions for science, correct.

Presupposition Theology puts a lot of the table so to speak.

I think he means “puts a lot on the table.”

First and foremost however, Presupposition Theology is an admission by Christian apologists that Faith is not a virtue and is in fact a bad thing (a reversal of everything Christianity has preached for over 2000 years and continues to preach today). These apologists have then attempted to transfer their own burden of faith onto reason.

At this point, I simply can’t say I’ve ever heard of “Presupposition Theology.” And I don’t know why “Faith” is capitalized. I also have no idea what Rosch is talking about when he says presuppositionalists believe that faith “is not a virtue and is in fact a bad thing.” That’s actually the precise opposite of the truth. Clearly, the presuppositional apologetics administered by this website, Bahnsen’s works, Van Til’s works, etc. are not being talked about…

Second, those that hold to the Presupposition Theology don’t seem to understand how science works and why it is different from faith-based thinking. Science doesn’t depend on the laws of physics remaining constant; science observes that the laws of physics seem to be constant. If the laws of physics changed tomorrow, science would adapt and still try to understand and discover how the universe works.

This is simply absurd. Science does depend upon the law of uniformity. If the laws of chemistry, pressure, and physics changes tomorrow, how on earth are you supposed to do a science experiment? How will you know you won’t wake up staring into your floor because the law of gravity decided to change over night? You can’t know empirically. You can’t test it. That’s the point, and Rosch admits it: “the laws of physics seem to be constant.” This doesn’t explain anything. It doesn’t let the atheist off the hook. Are they or are they not? Depending on the answer to that question, everything changes; the keyboard in your hand could crumble in an instant.

Moreover, if the law of physics changed tomorrow, how on earth would “science…adapt”? Our most profound conclusion about that event is that there can be no certain knowledge of anything (and remember, the word “science” means “to know”). What would be the next step? Would we assume the laws of physics would change again? Why not? Why so? Which ones and why? How? On what basis? In fact, how would anyone even know that the laws of science changed in the first place – for wouldn’t they be assuming laws of science to draw conclusions about these laws?

Science points out that

This seriously reminds me of naturalist evolutionists when they speak. “Evolution did.” “Evolution thought about.” “Evolution considered the paths.” “Evolution decided.” “Evolution knew.” “Evolution created.”

Let’s set the record straight: evolution by evolutionist’s own authoritative standards on the subject (i.e. Evolutionary Analysis) recognize that evolution is a mindless process without purpose or meaning. For example, in that (previously cited) text book, we read on page 15:

“There is nothing mysterious or purposeful about evolution by natural selection; it just happens. It is an automatic sequence of simple, cold arithmetic.”

So, anyway, it just reminded me of the way Rosch is approaching this situation by saying “science points out.” Science doesn’t point out anything; it’s an enterprise of knowledge and research. If Rosch is going to make an assertion about some field of knowledge- cite a person, a paper, a book, something. There’s simply no reason for a thinking person to take him seriously if all that’s provided is “science says x! Believe!”

if the universe works a certain way, than we can expect to observe certain things. When we in fact observe those certain things, we can conclude that the laws of physics seem to be constant. Science doesn’t have an assumption of reason nor does it take reason to be true on faith. Reason is a tool that science uses. We use that tool because of its amazing predictive and adaptive abilities.

This is obviously equally absurd as previous comments. What Rosch is essentially trying to argue is that there are no preconditions for science. I don’t know a single qualified scientist, secular or Christian, who would agree with that, and it’s for a good reason: there are countless preconditions for science. For example, do we not presuppose that human intuition is possible? Do we not assume that language conveys accurate concepts rammed through the axons of one’s cortex to the finger tips and back? Do we not assume that knowledge itself is obtainable? And of course, do we not assume that science has laws? Or is science entirely autonomous, having no rules, no logic, and no paradigm from which to arrive at “facts” and “knowledge”?

Rosch’s assertion must be compared to a man changing the lightbulb in his garage who says “I’m not standing on a chair; I don’t need any of that jazz. I’m just changing the lightbulb.”

If a certain theory holds true than we ought to expect to observe certain things.

Of course, we had to expect certain things in order to develop a theory!!

If we don’t observe those things, then we alter the theory or scrap it completely.

Upon what basis? And, is that basis according to another theory?

If we do observe those things, then we continue to observe. The more the theory’s predictions hold up, the stronger the theory becomes. Theories like gravity and evolution have a long track record of accurate predictions. They are examples of strong theories. We hold those theories to be true not on faith, but on their long track record of accurate predictions.

Again, are we to believe all of these theories developed out of a theory-less, assumptionless universe? That’s like saying astronauts in space who successfully launched a satellite around mars while in orbit never actually left earth. It’s like saying a brain surgeon successfully removed a tumor from a man’s skull without ever attending medical/surgical school. In short, there is a basis from which a person develops ideas whether he acknowledges it or not. We usually call it a “worldview,” and it affects the way we make theories and interpret facts.

Reason needs no presupposition.

Oh my. Well, I think this was already adequately addressed.

If reason were to fail us, then we move on.

And how will you know reason failed us? By reason?

As it happens, that has not occurred in all of recorded human history.

I’m sorry to report that I burst out laughing when I read this. Well. There it is folks. The power of presupposition. Rosch the atheist just did the proverbial worldview-faceplant. He has argued that reason has never failed “in all of human history” because reason says so! In this model, human beings could never be wrong, for there is no objective standard by which to make objective statements. It’s like a criminal who’s “getting better” and “rehabilitating” because he’s allowed to change the law any time he wants.

Science doesn’t depend on any presuppositions, because it isn’t declaring Truth. Science is about exploring the natural world as accurately as we can.

Sad. And I would like to point Rosch to the history of science, because virtually every major discovery in scientific history was discovered by men who were looking for nothing less than the truth. Likewise, they assumed nature was orderly (see the book, A Meaningful World), which led to scientific discovery, even though it is not an assumption that results from scientific exploration itself.

Besides all that, I’m wondering if Rosch thinks that his previous statement about how reason has never failed in all of human history is “the truth.” And, what “truth is” and how it can be measured.

We can say that we know certain things with reasonable certainty because the evidence seems to indicate those things are the case and we can use our conclusions to accurately predict other facts about the world. But we might be wrong and for all we know, we might be just characters in some alien computer game.

Yep. I honestly didn’t see this (ontological relativism) coming either. But, why didn’t I?

“The wisdom of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing.”

“The fool says in his heart, ‘there is no God.’”

As far as God creating reason that may very well be the case but to date there is no evidence to suggest that it is.

Of course not. How could their be? You’ve presupposed the impossibility of God’s existence from the outset. No evidence will suffice. Not the stars in the sky, the DNA in every drop of blood in every human being who has ever lived, the fact of neurological consciousness, the brain itself, the beauty of a sunset, of a woman, of a symphony, the glory of the seas and the mountains all screaming “BUILT BY YHWH! HOLY IS THE LORD!” The atom. The electron. Water and its remarkable expansion during a freeze. Photosynthesis. Objective morality. The continual grief over the death of human beings despite the fact of psychological conditioning. The strength of an ant. The feeling of love. The fact of love. The salvation of sinners despite all odds. Human good and human evil. The laws of logic. The rules of chess. The distinction between one entity and another in any circumstances whatsoever.

And on. And on. And on.

Give the atheist any argument that allows them to hold on to their presuppositions and you’ve accomplished nothing. It’s that simple. Challenge the unbeliever’s presuppositions, or go home and eat rice. That’s the consistent message of Scriptural apologetics: it’s all or nothing. Take up your cross and follow, or don’t. Repent and believe and commit your life to Jesus Christ, or try and enjoy your sin until death. There is no middle ground.

We don’t really know why the laws of physics are what they are.

And yet, the atheist is willing to say that he knows that human reason has never failed anytime in human history? Doesn’t human reason seem a little bit more flexible and prone to mistake than gravity?

If they were different, then we would no doubt be different or perhaps we wouldn’t exist at all to ask the question. All we can say is that we observe the laws of physics to be a certain way and based on those observations we can expect certain outcomes to occur and as a point of fact they do.

I’m sorry sir, but you can expect nothing. Everything has been forfeited. The possibility of knowledge. The possibility of predication. The possibility of learning. The possibility of any intellectual advancement that could ever be conceived from the mind of man. It’s done. And let’s be clear, “we” is speaking only for yourself in the atheistic community, not for mankind.

I would encourage Staks Rosch to stop running from his Creator. He has sinned against a Holy God and will be held accountable to Him. Yet, the Creator of the universe has provided an atonement, a way of salvation to the Father: Jesus Christ. Repent of your sins, drop your silly and absolutely ridiculous assertions about reality, and follow Christ, the only way of forgiveness and redemption. For there is no other name by which we must be saved, than that of the Lord Jesus Christ, who is reigning over all even as we read this post. And even as we defame his glory.