ARCHIVE: Presuppositionalism - What and Why?

[Balder]

Hi, Hilston,

I have completed the several projects I mentioned I was working on, so I will have time soon to respond more fully to your recent letters. For tonight, I will address just a few things that stuck out for me in your last post.

Balder wrote:
Maybe your presuppositions are getting in the way. Sometimes they have to be suspended, though not necessarily forsaken, to understand where another person is coming from.

Hilston replied:
This statement indicates to me that you're not clear on what presuppositions are. They can't be suspended. That's the nature of them. They are non-negotiables that underpin our thinking.

Interestingly, your response makes me think that you don't understand what presuppositions are! Since this is evidence at least that we are probably using the word in different ways, I guess I should ask you for as clear a definition as possible of presuppositions. In particular, I'm interested if you think that presuppositions are specific "atomic" ideas that exist universally in all human minds. Since I can think of a number of cultural and linguistic presuppositions that are not universal at all, I am wondering if you are thinking just of a limited subset of presuppositions that you believe are non-negotiable for all human beings.

As I understand the term, a presupposition is an often unconscious belief that underlies human thought -- a proposition which in itself is accepted unquestioningly or without proof, but on which other proofs are then "built." Different worldviews and logical systems will operate with different presuppositions about the nature of the world. What is universal is that there always appear to be a few foundational "atoms" of thought which are taken for granted, if not held completely unconsciously, and which are necessary for the coherence of that particular worldview, system, or statement (depending on the level of analysis).

In your understanding, are there certain presuppositions which are common to all human thought at all times, in all cultures? If so, what is the nature of these presuppositions? Are they beliefs, instincts, or what? Are they products of cognitive development, or do they orignate "outside" of human beings? If the latter, how do they get into our minds? Is it possible for human beings to hold incorrect presuppositions, or is a presupposition by definition always correct?

In another letter, I noticed you said it was inconsistent and incoherent to use logic to describe and defend logic. I'm curious if you think the same is true of language. Do you think it is incoherent and necessarily problematic to use language to describe language and to defend the effectiveness of language? If so, why? If not, why not? Why is using language to describe and defend the usefulness and effectiveness of language less problematic than using logic to describe logic and defend its usefulness?

Balder wrote:
You conclude that it must exist because the fallible human logical inferences and deductions you make nevertheless appear to be generally reliable, but you do not know it in itself;...

Hilston replied
On the contrary. I do know it in itself because God has verified it. If I didn't have God to verify it, there would be no way to verify it.

How do you verify that God has verified it? Should I trust your word, or another's? Didn't Paul say all men are liars?

Balder asked:
What do you mean by "objective faith" in the Person of Christ?

Hilston replied:
Objective faith is faith that does not only exist in the mind. It is not subjective but objective. It is objective because it is the faith of Christ Himself given to man.

This sounds like a tautology: objective faith is objective because it's not subjective. If faith is a special feeling that is transmitted by another subject, e.g. the Person of Christ, then perhaps you should call it intersubjective faith.

Can you say more about this? Where else does faith exist, but in your mind? And how are you able to determine that it is anywhere but in your own mind? What tools do you use to determine this?

Balder wrote:
How do I know that you aren't obsessed or dishonest or deluded or whatever? How are you to prove that?

Hilston responded:
Excellent question! Here's the answer: You can check my claims against that of scripture.

If I find out that you are faithfully repeating what you have heard
elsewhere -- as you are also doing with Bahnsen's arguments -- why should that impress me as particularly honest, undeluded, or unobsessed? Why should I regard the Bible as authoritative or the final word?

Balder wrote:
Since a few paragraphs later you use astrology to support the supposed scientific knowledge of the writers of the Bible, I think you should think twice about telling others that they are trying to "shoehorn" science into an outmoded worldview or are on par with Nostradamus supporters!

Hilston chided:
This is the wrong reaction, Balder. Instead, you should have said, "I didn't realize the Bible teaches that the Zodiac was intended by God to communicate revelation to man."

Well, yes, I would be interested to know exactly what revelations you believe are revealed in the Zodiac. But which Zodiac are you talking about? Is there only one correct associative pattern, out of all those countless dots up there? You know how the Rorschach test works, I'm sure...

In response to some of your recent comments elsewhere, can you define "fear of the Lord"? How is it related to wisdom? How is accepting a set of presuppositions based on fear a better example of "critical thinking" than atheists' acceptance of the presupposition of logic based on experience?

Balder wrote:
I'd be interested to hear examples of Biblical data that you believe confirm recent scientific discoveries. In the last letter to you, I mentioned the mythical cosmology that is apparent as the background of many Biblical passages, so I'm sure you'll be dealing with that as well, and I look forward to hearing your thoughts.

Hilston replied:
There are whole organizations and websites devoted to this stuff. It doesn't interest me. It has no bearing whatever on my faith in scripture. Even if there were not a single example of Biblical data confrimed by science, I would still believe the Bible is God's inerrant, infallible Word. That's the nature of a priori belief.

Yeah, I know. Facts be damned! "The Bible says it, I believe it, and that settles it."

It still appears that old bumper sticker sums up Biblical presuppositionalism pretty nicely. Seriously, I am interested in why I should regard the Bible as infallible, regardless of what it says or how it connects with modern knowledge, and why that should be an a priori belief.

More will follow soon, but if you have time to address any of this in the meantime...feel free.

Peace,
Balder

 

[Soulman]

Clete:

[Naturalism]…doesn't even explain how you understand the concept of "tragedy" in the first place…

There’s that wild card again. Apes experience loss and are known to conduct ritualistic “wakes” after the death of a family member. They may not understand the concept of a “tragedy,” but they know the difference between dead and alive. Humans protect their young, apes protect their young, and it’s always a “tragedy” when a mother loses a child to a drive by shooting -- or a drive by cheetah. You ask, but how does a mother “know” that the death of her child isn’t actually a “good” thing? How does the mother “know” to feel “bad” about it? Without some Ultimate Standard “showing” her that the death of her child is a “bad” thing, she might actually be “happy” about it. In the logically incoherent universe of naturalism, the mother would not know enough to place “value” on the life of her child. Alive-good, dead-bad. Dead-good, alive-bad. The “concept” would escape her.

I’m no braniac, but if a monkey knows alive-good, dead-bad, I should be able to tell the difference. If a chimp can know alive-good, dead-bad without being told, it follows that I could “know” at least as much, for reasons having nothing to do with morality or wild cards.

…or how she would have ever figured out how to ask the question "Why me?". In fact, your scenario is just that much more argument that the world is not random and that things generally make sense. If it were a totally common event for children of all ages to just randomly drop dead for no reason at all then why would the mother have detected anything to be upset about in the first place?

Whether and to what degree “things generally make sense” is open for interpretation. “Generally” makes sense is an odd way to describe the divine governance of the cosmos. One would hope for something more than “generally makes sense” from a Supreme Being. I can say as much about my random universe. I think on closer unbiased inspection you would find that things generally make very little sense. Mothers often live in hostile environments where the death of children is not an uncommon event. It is not uncommon for a child to drop dead “for no reason at all.” In each and every case, I’d wager, the mother "detected something" to be upset about, with or without a wild card.

Soulman:

In the biblical worldview, every conceivable event, no matter how minor, must have a purpose contributing in a real, medial way toward the successful accomplishment of God’s ultimate, overriding purpose.

By what logic did you come to this conclusion? There is nothing in the Bible that teaches such a thing. There are lots of Calvinists who would teach you this, but the Bible does not. In fact, the Bible teaches just the opposite. God has enemies that are actively working to keep Him from accomplishing His purposes. They will, of course, be defeated in the end but that does not mean that they never complete a task designed to hinder God and to advance the cause of evil in the world. God's enemies were so successful at one point that God wiped out every last person on the planet save eight individuals and started all over again with those eight people.

Didn’t realize the sovereignty of God was a Calvinistic proposition. In MY “biblical worldview” God has ordained the end from the beginning. Yours, I see, is different. Are you presupposing that God doesn’t have an ultimate, overriding purpose, that God has more than one ultimate, overriding purpose, or that God has no interest in “minor” events?

There are three main possibilities. An event either serves directly to further God's purpose, or it serves to further the purposes of evil, or it is neutral. My attempt to convince you of the verity of the Biblical worldview serves God, your rejection of it serves evil, a supernova in another galaxy that goes completely unnoticed by anyone on this planet is neutral. God is able to use events that directly serve evil or that are neutral to accomplish His goals but doing so is an event discrete from the evil or neutral event itself.

How can God be “neutral” toward anything? I have an even harder time imagining an event being neutral toward God.

God could stop the entire universe from existing if He chose to, so every event that happens is "allowed" by God, everything. I do not believe and the Bible does not demand (logically) that God "ordained" every event or that every event have a meaning or a specific overarching cosmic purpose. Some things, many things, perhaps most things just happen.

That’s my line.

Soulman:

One thing we do know: God did nothing to stop it. God did not intervene.

You could not possibly know this.

She’s dead, isn’t she?

Soulman:

God “let” that child be killed. The drive by shooting, then, is not a “random” act in the biblical worldview, but the “will of God” and therefore necessary to the accomplishment of God’s ultimate purpose.

More Calvinist heresy and a prime example of why I hate that theology so completely.

If God could stop the entire universe, he could stop a drive by shooting. Why is it a heresy to say that God “let” that child be killed?

Soulman:

Either her death is “necessary” to the accomplishment of God’s purpose, or her death is of no consequence and “neutral” in respect to God’s larger purpose.

Or it is evil! Remember that Satan fellow in the Bible?

Satan killed her, God allowed it, or it just “happened.” Doesn’t it all boil down to the same thing? Either way, God could have prevented her death, but chose not to intervene.

Soulman:

If the success of God’s ultimate purpose does not “hinge” on the child’s death, then her death is not only “senseless” (as it would be in a naturalistic, random universe), her death was entirely “avoidable” (unlike the same event taking place in a naturalistic, random universe).

In a Biblical worldview, you have both good AND evil, love AND hate. You cannot love if it is impossible to hate. Love must be volitional as must be any act that has a moral component attached to it. Without choice morality is meaningless and without options choice is meaningless. The fact that you understand mindless murder to be a problem is proof that you know (at least intuitively) that good and evil, right and wrong, exist. Your own conscience, your own sense of right and wrong testify against the position you are arguing.

I’m arguing that her death was “senseless.” If in the biblical worldview Satan did it or it just “happened,” you have made no more “sense” of her death than I have. The question is, why did God allow it? Was her life expendable? Did she have nothing to contribute to the achievement of God’s ultimate purpose (if he has one)? Did Satan orchestrate the drive by shooting in opposition to God? Or did it just “happen,” independent of God’s plan? You have no idea.

Soulman:

Unlike the “logic” of a naturalistic explanation, the “logic” of God requiring her death escapes us.

Yeah, if you close your eyes to the possibility of evil, it escapes you! But logic cannot exist in a naturalistic universe. It is rationally impossible.

What is “logical” about God “requiring” her death, God giving Satan free reign to kill her, or God permitting her to die “accidentally”? I suppose “Bizzaro World” has its own kind of logical coherence, but that doesn’t explain how Bizzaro logic applies in OUR world.

Soulman:

Interestingly, whether God exists or not, the “results” are the same. The child is just as dead.

Precisely! This goes right along with my previous post. Only you are discussing random chance rather that regeneration. Calvinism (as it is today) discounts randomness or chance, just as you have accused the Bible of doing. The problem is that the world we live in looks PRECISELY like it would if randomness and chance did exist.

That’s my line -- again. Clete, the biblical worldview, at least as you’re explaining it, is an incoherent mess, and you’re proving it. Working both sides of the street (God’s in charge…no wait, Satan did it! God’s in charge…no wait, things just happen! God has a plan…no wait, the world is random!) is not helping you make your case. You have brought your own “brand” of theology into this, which makes your argument partisan, subjective, and part of a larger package of assumptions that may or may not find support outside your local Presuppositionalist bookstore. Like many "theories," it doesn't handle the particulars very well.

Just out of curiosity, what would YOU tell the child's mother?

 

[Balder]

Hi, Hilston,

Here's my latest installment. I haven't quite finished responding to your last letter, but I'll post as much as I've done so far:

Balder wrote:
No, a shard of metal is not an "entity." The atomic and molecular constituents of metal may be considered to have a form of prehension, but the organization of metal itself is not such that it is capable of "mediating" or supporting any higher forms of consciousness than that.

Hilston responded with three questions:
(1) How do you know this?

My beliefs in this area are based on the assertions of teachers that I trust, and on philosophical objections to the problematic traditional dualism of mind and matter, body and consciousness.

(2) Is a plant considered an entity on your view?

Yes, in my view it is. However, according to Buddhist teachings, while a plant is an entity – meaning that it is a living creature, a coherently self-organizing and self-replicating organism – it is not classified as a sentient being. More precisely, while a plant is inseparable from Buddha-nature, as are all other phenomena, and as such may be considered an objective presentation of Presence or SEPC, it does not possess an individual mind (citta).

(3) How do you define "unconsciousness"?

A cognitive process that is inaccessible to or outside the purview of conscious awareness. A function of intelligence that is not necessarily reflexively self-aware.

I believe even atoms are a function or “presentation” of Intelligence.

Hilston asked:
By what criteria did you determine the teachings of Dzogchen and Siddartha to be "more fully satisfactory"?

Their coherence, their explanatory power, and their comportment with my experience (within and outside of meditation).

Balder wrote:
Since Siddhartha's teachings deal primarily with direct experience, in meditation and outside of it, they are largely open to practical verification.

Hilston replied:
If I were to seek verification based on direct experience via meditation, etc., what would you tell me to look for as confirming evidence for the verity of your view?

Buddhist teachings contain some fairly sophisticated maps of consciousness, including descriptions of types of experiences and insights that occur at different stages of meditation practice and different levels of consciousness. By putting meditation into practice, you would be able to test whether its claims about the nature of mind, awareness, thought, emotion, suffering, self, etc, are in fact accurate.

Hilston asked:
Do you view the transmitters as authoritative regarding what they taught? Do you believe the transmitters had any errors in their teaching/writings?

I do regard the transmitters as authoritative. I do not know of any errors in Dzogchen literature, nor of any in Buddhist scripture that I regard as significant to the soteriological message of Buddhism, although some passages in early Buddhist texts reflect a mythological cosmology, not unlike the Bible, and I believe these references are factually inaccurate (e.g., that the world is organized in four symmetrical continents around Mount Meru).

Hilston wrote:
From your explanation (of the Buddhist doctrine of anatta), it appears to me that your definition of "self" requires being the cause of one's own existence; self-existent and unchanging. If you are not the cause of your own existence and if you are not self-existent and unchanging, you are not permanent, right? Why do you believe this?

Can you give me a philosophical or practical reason why I shouldn’t believe it? Are you permanent and unchanging? Is your body non-contingent, or your personality?

Hilton asked:
Do you believe you yourself have reached buddhahood yet? If not, do you know anyone who has?

No, I have not reached buddhahood yet. I don’t think I have met any living teachers who have, either, although I believe I have met some who are quite enlightened, from a Buddhist perspective, and who may be on the verge of that realization.


Balder wrote:
Yes, the Buddha does teach these things. Buddhism doesn't have an exact word for sin, however; the word used is akusala, which means unwholesome or unskillful.

Hilston asked:
How are those terms defined (unwholesome, unskillful)?

Unwholesome and unskillful acts are those which are harmful, unhealthy, destructive, leading to suffering, illusion, obscuration, fragmentation, and negative actions or intentions. They are acts or beliefs which promote the root causes of suffering and delusion and which prevent the conscious actualization of the inherent perfection and plenitude (dzog-chen, “great perfection”) which is the ultimate ground and end of all things.

Hilston asked:
Why do you want to perceive reality more clearly?

...Why do you want this insight? Aren't reality and suffering and evil unpleasant? Why do you want this insight?

Why wouldn’t I? If you are interested in your existential condition, and as a human being I don’t think you can avoid confronting the need to do so at some point in your life, then you naturally must face these realities and learn from them if you can. It’s not just about seeking whatever is pleasing on the surface; that attitude, in fact, turns out to be part of the problem.

Peace,
Balder

 

[Balder]

Hilston,

A further note...

You’ve mentioned a number of times that you don’t know why you should even care to learn more about Buddhism, or the Buddhist tradition I am representing here (Dzogchen). In the context of this discussion, I think you should care to learn more about Buddhism because I believe it is capable of doing what you say it cannot do – providing a coherent account for the world as we know it, as well as a coherent base for a moral system that is certainly on par with Christian morality. As far as whether you should care to learn more about Dzogchen or not, I will repeat here that I am not proselytizing for the tradition; that is not my place in this “Exclusively Christian” debate room. But as a Christian person who most likely regards the resurrection of Jesus as a pivotal event in history, and who probably dismisses all other religions because they do not have a resurrected savior (among other reasons), I think you should at least be curious about a tradition which claims to have many instances of an event that is quite similar to the resurrection: jalu, or the attainment of the “rainbow body.” When a practitioner of Dzogchen attains rainbow body, the body is completely dissolved into subtle energy at death, until no trace of the physical organism remains (except sometimes lifeless hair and nails). The fully realized person who manifests rainbow body at death does not simply “cease to exist,” however, and may return in either visionary or physical manifestations to his disciples. There are scores of people who have realized this final fruit of Buddhist practice in the Dzogchen tradition, even up to the present day. If these stories are true, then I think they represent a phenomenon which should at least merit investigation by any open-minded Christian, particularly if he believes in the resurrection of Jesus and looks forward to the same for himself. Because not only does Dzogchen tradition teach that these things happen; it knows precisely how and why they happen, and in the later stages of its path prepares all followers for the same end.

Peace,
Balder

 

[Soulman]

Hilston:

Hilston asked Balder:

Why is it your desire to be compassionate to others? Why does it matter to you that the pristine light of buddhanature is in all beings?

And Balder said:

The Buddha teaches that when we awaken to the depths of the truth of our mutuality, we are also awakened to our responsibility.

And Hilston replied:

Why do you want responsibility?

Not sure if Balder answered it directly, meant to ask earlier, but why would you ask why Balder (or anyone else) would “want” responsibility?

I know, why would I ask why you would ask?

Because I’m not sure what you meant by it. Are you implying that in the Buddhist (or any non-biblical) worldview the “logical coherency” (or incoherency) of “responsibility” wouldn’t be “possible”? Or are you saying that it isn’t “logical” to accept personal responsibility, regardless of one’s worldview?

 

[Balder]

I wondered too about that question. It isn't one that I've addressed directly, but I may write about it more in a subsequent letter. I'd be interested to hear why Hilston is asking the question. One thing that I suspected behind the question was the following line of reasoning: "If you don't believe that there is someone standing over you telling you to be responsible to other people and warning you of severe punishment if you fail to comply, then why would you bother being responsible or caring for other people?" But I may be reading too much into the question. I hope I am.

Peace,
B.

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by Soulman

Clete:

There’s that wild card again. Apes experience loss and are known to conduct ritualistic “wakes” after the death of a family member. They may not understand the concept of a “tragedy,” but they know the difference between dead and alive. Humans protect their young, apes protect their young, and it’s always a “tragedy” when a mother loses a child to a drive by shooting -- or a drive by cheetah. You ask, but how does a mother “know” that the death of her child isn’t actually a “good” thing? How does the mother “know” to feel “bad” about it? Without some Ultimate Standard “showing” her that the death of her child is a “bad” thing, she might actually be “happy” about it. In the logically incoherent universe of naturalism, the mother would not know enough to place “value” on the life of her child. Alive-good, dead-bad. Dead-good, alive-bad. The “concept” would escape her.

You apparently don't even understand the form of the argument, Soulman. How would she know that the child was dead? How would she know that the child was ever alive to begin with? How would she know that there was a child at all? How would she know that she wasn't dreaming the whole drive-by scenario up?
The answer is, that she cannot and neither can you. Your entire worldview is utterly incoherent. The only thing you can know is that you cannot know anything at all, including that you cannot know anything at all. How much sense does that nonsense make?

I'm no braniac, but if a monkey knows alive-good, dead-bad, I should be able to tell the difference.

That's just the point. You cannot know alive-good, dead bad. That's just how pathetic your worldview is. You might assume alive-good, dead-bad but you cannot explain why it make s sense without begging the question and you cannot tell someone who thinks alive-bad dead-good why they are wrong.

If a chimp can know alive-good, dead-bad without being told, it follows that I could “know” at least as much, for reasons having nothing to do with morality or wild cards.

Are you suggesting that drive-by shootings of children has nothing to do with morality? Are you suggesting that it is simply survival of the fittest as it is in the jungle where chimps live? Is that really where you want to go with this?

Whether and to what degree “things generally make sense” is open for interpretation.

No, you are wrong. Something is either logically coherent or it is not. Worldviews that are hopelessly mired in question begging are logically incoherent, period. Your opinion (or mine for that matter) is of no consequence to the truth.

“Generally” makes sense is an odd way to describe the divine governance of the cosmos. One would hope for something more than “generally makes sense” from a Supreme Being.

You do not understand the use of common language, you do not understand the God whom you blaspheme, you do not understand anything that you are talking about.

I can say as much about my random universe.

NO! That's is just the point. You cannot say anywhere close to as much about a random universe. If you understood the argument against you, you wouldn't even begin to say something so ridiculous.

I think on closer unbiased inspection you would find that things generally make very little sense. Mothers often live in hostile environments where the death of children is not an uncommon event.

Something that makes logical sense isn't always pleasant. Something that is unjust isn't logically incoherent or even inconsistent within a universe where evil exists and is real.

It is not uncommon for a child to drop dead “for no reason at all.” In each and every case, I’d wager, the mother "detected something" to be upset about, with or without a wild card.

It is uncommon (although not as uncommon as it would be if the laws in this country were just) but the fact that the mother detects a problem only argues my point, not yours. You really need to go back and make an effort to understand the argument.

Didn’t realize the sovereignty of God was a Calvinistic proposition. In MY “biblical worldview” God has ordained the end from the beginning.

As you define sovereignty it is very definitely a Calvinistic proposition and an unbiblical one at that. For starters the Bible does not say that God "ordained the end from the beginning." That is a classic example of Calvinists reading their theology into the text of the Bible.

Yours, I see, is different.

Yes. Mine is based on the Bible, not on the writings of Aristotle and Plato.

Are you presupposing that God doesn’t have an ultimate, overriding purpose, that God has more than one ultimate, overriding purpose, or that God has no interest in “minor” events?

Neither.

How can God be “neutral” toward anything? I have an even harder time imagining an event being neutral toward God.

Who cares what you can imagine. The number of time a specific electron has rotated around a specific atom nucleus makes no difference at all about anything. God doesn't know, and doesn't care about all of the mindless minutia that occurs every moment in the universe. He couldn't care less how many photons of light have entered your left eye ball. He doesn't care how many strokes it took for me to finish brushing my teeth this morning, or whether I used Crest Tarter Control or baking soda. There are thousands of things that happen every day that God is able to control if He decides there is a need to do so but that are generally just happening just as they have been designed to work.

That’s my line.

No it is not!
You do not understand the argument.

She’s dead, isn’t she?

That isn't God's fault.

If God could stop the entire universe, he could stop a drive by shooting. Why is it a heresy to say that God “let” that child be killed?

Saying that God "let" anything happen is a stupid thing to say. Of course He "let" it happen or else it wouldn't have happened in the first place. Saying that God let something happen is no more informative than saying that everything that happens, happens. Well of course it happens, or else you couldn't say it happens! It's a totally waste of time thing to say.
It's heresy for you to say it though because when you say it, you are loading up the words with extra meaning. What you are saying, or at least implying is that God intended for it to happen, that God planned for it to happen and that He predestined that it would happen and that the perpetrator of the crime could not have done otherwise because God had ordained before his birth that he would perform that crime in just the manner and circumstances in which it was performed. You make God out to be the author of evil and in so doing you commit blasphemy of the highest order.

Satan killed her, God allowed it, or it just “happened.” Doesn’t it all boil down to the same thing? Either way, God could have prevented her death, but chose not to intervene.

I've been really trying to stay away from the insults lately but frankly this statement is idiotic. You have no concept at all of what the whole point of God having created us in the first place is do you? You have no concept of what it means to do something evil, you must therefore have no concept at all of what it means to do something good either.

Take your idiotic statement to the other logical extreme, Soulman...

Satan did it, God allowed it, or it just “happened.” Doesn’t it all boil down to the same thing? Either way, God could have prevented that Tic-Tac from getting stolen, but chose not to intervene.

Now, lets see if you can figure out the point I just made with that rephrasing of your statement.

I’m arguing that her death was “senseless.” If in the biblical worldview Satan did it or it just “happened,” you have made no more “sense” of her death than I have.

We are not talking about justice here Soulman we are talking about logical coherence. Do you not understand that when you argue about the obvious "senselessness" or injustice of such an act that you are arguing against you own position? Outside a Biblical worldview, justice cannot exist at all!

The question is, why did God allow it?

Why does He allow anything Soulman?

Was her life expendable?

Expendable in what sense? (You will not be able to answer this question without arguing against your own position and in favor of the Biblical worldview.)

Did she have nothing to contribute to the achievement of God’s ultimate purpose (if he has one)?

All people have something to contribute, including you. The question is will you and if you don't will God therefore be defeated. NO, He will not be.

Did Satan orchestrate the drive by shooting in opposition to God?

Very likely yes but perhaps it was just the evil jerk off who did the deed who planned it. People can be pretty darn evil all by themselves without the help of demons or Satan or Hillary Clinton.

Or did it just “happen,” independent of God’s plan? You have no idea.

It was not God's plan for someone to be murdered. I can in fact know that without any doubt whatsoever.

What is “logical” about God “requiring” her death, God giving Satan free reign to kill her, or God permitting her to die “accidentally”? I suppose “Bizzaro World” has its own kind of logical coherence, but that doesn’t explain how Bizzaro logic applies in OUR world.

Again, you argue against your own position. Your constant appeal to justice is your Achilles heel.

That’s my line -- again.

No it isn't.
You do not understand the argument.

Clete, the biblical worldview, at least as you’re explaining it, is an incoherent mess, and you’re proving it. Working both sides of the street (God’s in charge…no wait, Satan did it! God’s in charge…no wait, things just happen! God has a plan…no wait, the world is random!) is not helping you make your case. You have brought your own “brand” of theology into this, which makes your argument partisan, subjective, and part of a larger package of assumptions that may or may not find support outside your local Presuppositionalist bookstore. Like many "theories," it doesn't handle the particulars very well.

Look, who are you debating against, anyway? I never said anything like "God’s in charge…no wait, Satan did it! God’s in charge…no wait, things just happen! God has a plan…no wait, the world is random".
If you want to debate a Calvinist you need to go find Z Man or Swordsman. My worldview has no such logical incoherence as what you have suggested here.

Just out of curiosity, what would YOU tell the child's mother?

That there will come a day when judgment will be committed to the saints of God and that if she is a believer, those who killed her child will stand before her to receive their just reward for their actions.

Your turn, what would you tell her, “Woops! Man, that’s a real bummer! Oh well, I guess it’s as good an excuse to have another kid any anything else, eh?”?

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Balder]

Hi, Clete,

Although I'm quite involved in a parallel discussion, I wanted to make a comment with regard to your recent assertion that non-Christians have no coherent reason for considering the murder of a child a tragedy. As I believe I indicated on another thread, I do understand where presuppositionalists are coming from in their arguments, but I believe this comment is taking things too far, even within a presuppositionalist framework. On a personal level, where you love an individual, you have hopes for the promise they show, you care for their well-being and happiness, etc, etc, you do not need to hold to a theistic worldview to feel the untimely demise of a child is tragic, or to mourn a stray bullet to her head. You don't need an elaborate metaphysics to appreciate or feel that loss, or for that feeling of loss to be real and meaningful. Even an atheist materialist can coherently lament the loss of a child within his worldview, because in his worldview, life is rare and precious, lasting only a handful of decades. If this time is cut in half, or worse, I don't think it is incoherent at all for an atheist to regard such a loss as a tragedy.

I understand that you may be thinking of "ultimate," or metaphysical reasons why the death of a child is tragic and not just "natural," but if you think about it, the metaphysical worldview of Christianity doesn't necessarily render such a loss "tragic" either. If you hold that "absent from the body" means you must be "present with the Lord," especially for innocent children and saved Christians, then why should such a death be considered as more "ultimately" and coherently "tragic" than from an atheist's viewpoint? If you believe, however, that a non-Christian 7 year old killed in a drive-by shooting is destined for eternal conscious torment as punishment for her sins...well, that indeed IS more tragic. But the tragedy here depends upon believing the Creator of that child is quite monstrous indeed, and this belief should not be held up as a morally superior or more coherent worldview.

Peace,
Balder

 

[Hilston]

Hi Balder,

Thanks for the continued discussion. My reply to your first of your most recent posts is below:

Hilston wrote:
This statement indicates to me that you're not clear on what presuppositions are. They can't be suspended. That's the nature of them. They are non-negotiables that underpin our thinking.

Balder writes:
Interestingly, your response makes me think that you don't understand what presuppositions are! Since this is evidence at least that we are probably using the word in different ways, I guess I should ask you for as clear a definition as possible of presuppositions. In particular, I'm interested if you think that presuppositions are specific "atomic" ideas that exist universally in all human minds.

No, that's not my view.

Balder writes:
Since I can think of a number of cultural and linguistic presuppositions that are not universal at all, I am wondering if you are thinking just of a limited subset of presuppositions that you believe are non-negotiable for all human beings.

No, nothing like that.

Balder writes:
As I understand the term, a presupposition is an often unconscious belief that underlies human thought -- a proposition which in itself is accepted unquestioningly or without proof, but on which other proofs are then "built."

I agree with that definition.

Balder writes:
Different worldviews and logical systems will operate with different presuppositions about the nature of the world.

I agree with that as well.

Balder writes:
What is universal is that there always appear to be a few foundational "atoms" of thought which are taken for granted, if not held completely unconsciously, and which are necessary for the coherence of that particular worldview, system, or statement (depending on the level of analysis).

Again, I agree. I would add, however, that most people do not subject their worldview to an adequate level of analysis, otherwise they would realize that the coherence of their worldview is suspect at a fundamental level.

Balder writes:
In your understanding, are there certain presuppositions which are common to all human thought at all times, in all cultures?

I've never given that much thought. It wouldn't matter to me, frankly, if that were case or not. Each person is unique, and the similarities of their presuppositions to others nothwithstanding, I would still need to find out what they are and how self-conscious they are about those presuppositions.

Balder writes:
Is it possible for human beings to hold incorrect presuppositions, ...

Yes, most do.

Balder writes:
... or is a presupposition by definition always correct?

No.

Balder writes:
In another letter, I noticed you said it was inconsistent and incoherent to use logic to describe and defend logic.

That's not true. If I said that, I misspoke. If you have the quote handy, I might be able to explain what I meant or correct my error.

Balder writes:
I'm curious if you think the same is true of language. Do you think it is incoherent and necessarily problematic to use language to describe language and to defend the effectiveness of language? If so, why? If not, why not? Why is using language to describe and defend the usefulness and effectiveness of language less problematic than using logic to describe logic and defend its usefulness?

That's not my view ... at all.

Balder wrote:
You conclude that it must exist because the fallible human logical inferences and deductions you make nevertheless appear to be generally reliable, but you do not know it in itself;...

Hilston replied
On the contrary. I do know it in itself because God has verified it. If I didn't have God to verify it, there would be no way to verify it.

Balder writes:
How do you verify that God has verified it?

I can't. God's word comes pre-verified. My faith in God and my confidence in His Word are gifts that I cannot account for or prove. It is personal and subjective, but no less certain and fully assured in my worldview.

Balder writes:
Should I trust your word, or another's? Didn't Paul say all men are liars?

You should not trust my word. All men are liars, with the rare exception of prophets who were kept from error by supernatural means. The prophets spoke and wrote inerrantly and infallibly ("prophet" here is not used in the "future-telling" sense of of the word, but in the "speaking/writing in behalf of God" sense of it). There are no prophets today. The only thing trustworthy today is God's word. All else is suspect.

Balder asked:
What do you mean by "objective faith" in the Person of Christ?

Hilston replied:
Objective faith is faith that does not only exist in the mind. It is not subjective but objective. It is objective because it is the faith of Christ Himself given to man.

Balder writes:
This sounds like a tautology: objective faith is objective because it's not subjective.

Then allow me to clarify. It is objective because it is the faith of Christ Himself given to man. It is not conjured up in the mind. It is not manufactured by effort or meditation. Christ's faith, the foundation of all objective truth, is perfect, unwavering, and complete. That is the objective sense of faith. It is the foundation of the believer's subjective faith and the basis of objective truth.

1Co 2:11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. 13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. 16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.

Balder writes:
If faith is a special feeling that is transmitted by another subject, e.g. the Person of Christ, then perhaps you should call it intersubjective faith.

It isn't a feeling. It is a confidence regarding something unseen and unrealized.

Balder writes:
Can you say more about this? Where else does faith exist, but in your mind?

One's own faith exists in the mind. The Faith of Christ is objective and exists outside of the mind. Our subjective faith is informed by Christ's faith. The subjective faith is made certain of Christ's faith by the work of the Spirit.

Ro 8:16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:

Balder writes:
And how are you able to determine that it is anywhere but in your own mind? What tools do you use to determine this?

The Bible is the only reliable tool that determines the nature of our faith.

Balder writes:
If I find out that you are faithfully repeating what you have heard elsewhere -- as you are also doing with Bahnsen's arguments -- why should that impress me as particularly honest, undeluded, or unobsessed?

I appeal to no authority but scripture.

Balder writes:
Why should I regard the Bible as authoritative or the final word?

Because if you do not, your worldview is reduced to absurdity.

Hilston chided:
This is the wrong reaction, Balder. Instead, you should have said, "I didn't realize the Bible teaches that the Zodiac was intended by God to communicate revelation to man."

Balder writes:
Well, yes, I would be interested to know exactly what revelations you believe are revealed in the Zodiac. But which Zodiac are you talking about?

The one referenced in the scriptures.

Balder writes:
Is there only one correct associative pattern, out of all those countless dots up there? You know how the Rorschach test works, I'm sure...

If the Bible is true, and if all men are descendents of Noah, who understood the message of the constellations, then it was not a Rorschach situation. And in fact, we find that the older Zodiacs are more consistent and similar to one another, just as we find with the transcultural/transcontinental flood legends. Let me hasten to say that I do not rely upon any extrabiblical claims regarding the Zodiac to prove its use by the ancients. The scriptures suffice to demonstrate that.

Balder writes:
In response to some of your recent comments elsewhere, can you define "fear of the Lord"?

Reverence for the Lord. Giving the Lord priority in all of one's reasoning.

Balder writes:
How is it related to wisdom?

True wisdom comes from humble submission to the authority of God and His Word. Without that humility and submission to His Word, there can be no true wisdom.

Balder writes:
How is accepting a set of presuppositions based on fear a better example of "critical thinking" than atheists' acceptance of the presupposition of logic based on experience?

There is no justifiable "critical thinking" apart from reverence, humility and submission to God's authority. There is no certainty regarding experience that has not been grounded and justified by the Word of God. The atheist cannot justify or validate what he calls "critical thinking"; nor can he justifiably rely upon what he call "experience."

Hilston wrote:
There are whole organizations and websites devoted to this stuff. It doesn't interest me. It has no bearing whatever on my faith in scripture. Even if there were not a single example of Biblical data confrimed by science, I would still believe the Bible is God's inerrant, infallible Word. That's the nature of a priori belief.

Balder writes:
Yeah, I know. Facts be damned! "The Bible says it, I believe it, and that settles it."

You're mistaken. Belief and confidence in the Bible establishes and validates the facts. Those who do not start with the fear of the Lord and the authority of scripture have no certitude or validation regarding the so-called facts.

Balder writes:
It still appears that old bumper sticker sums up Biblical presuppositionalism pretty nicely.

You're mistaken. Presuppositionalism describes a method of apologetics that employs biblical principles or argumentation. The bumper sticker is intended to describe a personal, subjective confidence.

Balder writes:
Seriously, I am interested in why I should regard the Bible as infallible, regardless of what it says or how it connects with modern knowledge, ...

You shouldn't. You can't. The best you can attain is the acknowledgement that your worldview does not adequately account for or align with reality, and that the biblical worldview does. You cannot attain confidence in its infallibility apart from regeneration.

Mt 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

Lu 16:31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

Balder writes:
... and why that should be an a priori belief.

Because you cannot manufacture your own faith and confidence in God's word. It cannot be had apart from Holy-Spirit-initiated regeneration. The carnal mind will not yield to God's law; it is unable to do so. The only way for you to confidently believe in the inerrancy and infallibility of scripture is to be regenerated. The result of that will be an insatiable hunger for the scriptures, a humble acknowledgement of your own unworthiness before God, and full repentance regarding your rebellion and sinful disregard for God and His Word.

 

[Hilston]

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

Umm. Nope!

I found it now though! :doh:

I knew I must have missed something! Sorry about that. I'll respond ASAP. Some of my last two posts is pertinent to our discussion; feel free to throw in your two cents on those in the mean time if you like.

Just a reminder, Clete.

 

[Balder]

Hi, Hilston,

Just a short response for now…

Since you agree with my definition of presuppositions, and believe that many people hold mistaken presuppositions, and further suggest that worldviews can be held up to an adequate enough level of analysis to reveal inconsistency or incoherence, then I am curious why you argued previously that presuppositions could not be suspended – that they are in fact non-negotiable. If what you contend were actually true, then learning would be impossible; no one could grasp, examine, or let go of whatever errant presuppositions they happen to have gotten saddled with. Do you believe this?

You also didn’t answer my query on the origin of presuppositions – if they are innate or acquired, wholly given or cognitively constructed over time. Do you have an opinion?

Peace,
Balder

 

[temple2006]

Et al...I live on a farm and there are cattle in our pasture. The other day my husband and I observed a very agitated cow. She was walking in circles around a particular spot, mooing loudly the whole time. This went on for three days. Her calf had been born dead and I really have no explanation for her behavior, but it seems that there was some sort of "maternal instinct" at work.

Re the meaning of the drive by shooting which left the child dead. If you subscribe to randomness theory (which I do), then, no problem.
I go with the attitude, $__t happens.

 

[Hilston]

Originally posted by Balder
Since you agree with my definition of presuppositions, and believe that many people hold mistaken presuppositions, and further suggest that worldviews can be held up to an adequate enough level of analysis to reveal inconsistency or incoherence, then I am curious why you argued previously that presuppositions could not be suspended – that they are in fact non-negotiable. If what you contend were actually true, then learning would be impossible; no one could grasp, examine, or let go of whatever errant presuppositions they happen to have gotten saddled with. Do you believe this?

Yes. The only way errant presuppositions get jettisoned is by regeneration. They are not discursively supplanted, but supernaturally.

Originally posted by Balder
You also didn’t answer my query on the origin of presuppositions – if they are innate or acquired, wholly given or cognitively constructed over time. Do you have an opinion?

I think it is a combination. Some presuppositions are innate; some are acquired. Some are innate, but perhaps modified over time.

 

[Balder]

Hilston wrote:
The only way errant presuppositions get jettisoned is by regeneration. They are not discursively supplanted, but supernaturally.

Do you believe that no human in history has ever had one errant presupposition supplanted by another errant one? If not, if one set of non-Christian presuppositions can get exposed, uprooted and replaced by another non-Christian set, how do you explain this in your worldview?

 

[Hilston]

Maybe you can proffer a specific example.

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by Hilston
If you don't have regeneration to drive you toward belief in the Scriptures, what are you left with? Discursive reasoning? Scientific evidence? Based on what? Senses you can't calibrate? Reasoning faculties you cannot verify? Authorities you can't justify? Flesh and blood does not reveal this (Matthew 16:17). Human effort cannot manufacture belief (John 1:13 Romans 9:16). Even if someone were to rise from the dead, unbelievers would not believe (Luke 16:31). Evidence is not sufficient. Human effort is not sufficient. Reasoning is not sufficient. Because the problem is not a lack of evidence or a lack of compelling argument. The problem is rebellion born out of a dead spirit. Only regeneration can make a dead spirit live. Only regeneration can break the desire to rebel. Note that "the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned (1Co 2:14)." This doesn't mean the natural man is incapable of understanding the things of the Spirit. Almost anyone can comprehend the teachings of scripture. Rather, he does not receive them because he is a rebel and has no desire to embrace that which indicts him before God. The mind of such a person is described as "carnal" and stands in aggressive opposition to God., "for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God." (Ro 8:7,8).

Then why are you reasoning with Balder?
If you simply stepped back and looked at what you are doing with him and compared it to something that I might do if I were as familiar with the specific arguments as you are, you would not see any difference at all. I, not believing at all in the doctrine of regeneration would, or at least could, give the same arguments in the same fashion and with the same emotional and intellectual force as you, and end up with the exact same results. Balder will either accept the evidence that you are presenting of his worldview's incoherence or he will not. A belief in regeneration changes neither the approach taken, nor the results seen. There is simply nothing in our experience that provides any verification whatsoever that regeneration is anything more than simply a doctrine.

It's a big deal because evidentialism is the sin of Adam. It's the sin Paul warns about when he says to beware, "lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtlety, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ" (2Co 11:3).

I have looked at this idea of yours that evidentialism is the sin of Adam and I have yet to get close to figuring out where you've come up with it. The sin of Adam was eating of the forbidden fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, pure and simple. It may have been a clever argument of some sort that led him to commit that sin, but the argument wasn't the sin, the sin was eating of the Tree. And it was legalism Paul was warning about not faulty apologetics. The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil is a symbol of the law. The Tree had a ministry of death as did/does the law. If we place ourselves under law then we are cursed and Christ will profit us nothing. Instead we should count ourselves dead to the law in Him. If we are dead, having been put to death by the law in Him, then the law has exhausted its rights concerning us and we can therefore no longer be held accountable to it whether by the letter or by principle.

Certainly, Lucifer was crafty, but what did he do that would warrant that description? One thing was that he didn't go directly to Adam, although Adam was standing right beside Eve the whole time ("... she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat" Ge 3:6). When we consider Paul's fear and warning in 2Co 11, the beguiling of which he speaks describes more than just being deceived by a Satanic "end around," as Adam experienced (and errantly permitted to happen).

Satan's craftiness goes beyond his indirect approach, rather, it is the fact that he enticed Adam with the prospect of being his own lawmaker. That was, after all, the temptation of the forbidden fruit: It was borne of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (or, "The truly evil good" if we look at it hendiadystically). The actual aim of Lucifer's question, "Hath God said?" was to get Adam to justify or condemn God on his own terms. It didn't matter which. In other words, Lucifer was suggesting, "Why don't you use your own reason, Adam, your own assessment, your own standard of evaluation to ascertain whether or not God's mandate makes sense to you? Why don't you become your own lawmaker?"

You are reading a hell of a lot into what the text offers Jim. The simple fact is that Lucifer who at the time was unfallen and therefore trusted by Eve, deceived her into believing that it was not only okay to eat of the Tree but that she would be doing a good thing. He appealed to emotions, her good and righteous desire to be like God. He deceived her into thinking that eating was a short cut and she took it and Adam, knowing better, went along with her.
It seems to me that stretching this episode of Scripture to have it be involved somehow with an approach to apologetics is just that, a stretch.

Of course Adam's answer should have been: "Yes, God hath said, and yes He means what He says" (presuppositionalism) But instead, Adam's response could be characterized like this: "Hmm. Good point, Lucifer. God warns us that we will surely die if we eat the fruit of that tree. But what evidence do I have that this true? What does it mean to 'die,' after all, I've never seen anyone die before" (evidentialism).

There is simply no way that you could ever get, “Hmm. Good point, Lucifer. God warns us that we will surely die if we eat the fruit of that tree. But what evidence do I have that this true? What does it mean to 'die,' after all, I've never seen anyone die before” out of the text in Genesis by simply reading it. It’s just not in there. You are reading your theology into the text.

By so doing, Adam asserted his own imagined autonomy, presuming to have sufficient knowledge of good and evil beyond that which God revealed to him. It appears to me that the eating of the fruit coincided perfectly with Adam's presumed usurpation of God as Lawmaker. The eating of fruit is almost incidental (almost), the very act being the outward declaration of what had already occurred in Adam's mind and heart. Consider it like this: The fruit was not the thing. It was the presumption of knowing good and evil autonomously, apart from God's law. There is no way Adam could have eaten the fruit from that tree without this presumption having already occurred. The eating was a manifestation of Adam's presumption to know good and evil apart from God. It was Man's act of independence from God, becoming his own lawmaker, becoming as God, becoming his own judge of good and evil.

There are a thousand different things that could have been in Adam’s mind. You cannot know what you presume to know in the above statement. I understand why you assume what you assume but now you are begging the question by presuming to know what was in Adam’s mind in order to attempt to prove that he was guilty of evidentialism which would have been in his mind.

Thus, when Adam was found by God, hiding because of his newly realized nakedness, Adam's guilt and presumed autonomy was exposed (no pun intended). And God's question was both leading and loaded: "Who told you that you were naked?" We could paraphrase God's question this way: "You're not supposed to know that, Adam. You're supposed to get your information from ME. Will you now be your own lawmaker?"

If you previous assumption is correct then this assumption could be correct but not necessarily. This is the danger of reading theology into the text in the way you are doing here. Frankly I’m a bit surprised at you really. It isn’t like you to do this sort of thing and regularly call other on it when you detect it. I recommend simply sticking with what the text actually says and going from there.

The Greek word is palingenesia. It can mean "restoration," as in the case of Israel in Mt. 19:28 (also referred to as the "time of reformation" (Heb 9:10)). But in the case of the members of the Body of Christ, it refers to individual rebirth (Titus 3:5), the quickening of the dead spirit (Eph 2:1). Paul refers to the same concept as being made a "new creation."

2Co 5:17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

Ga 6:15 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.

I wasn’t looking for a definition of the word so much as an explanation of your understanding of the doctrine. You vehemently deny being a Calvinist and so I didn’t want to presume the normal Calvinistic understanding of the doctrine in your case. If there is no significant difference then we can proceed without dwelling on definitions any further. I just wanted to make sure we were talking about the same doctrine, that all.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Balder]

Hilston wrote:
Maybe you can proffer a specific example.

Okay, say that a person from India grows up with a set of presuppositions about the "natural" hierarchy of individuals based on birth, skin tone, and occupation (the caste system), and about the inescapability of one's "lot" in life -- one's karmic debt and dharmic duty to society. Later in life, this person moves to the US and attends university as an English major. In that environment, exposed repeatedly to thought that is influenced by Marxist, Feminist, and Poststructuralist/Deconstructionist beliefs and the presuppositions that drive them, the Indian person's presuppositions are repeatedly unearthed and challenged. Eventually, this person comes to reject the fatalistic, hierarchical presuppositions into which s/he had been born, and embraces the postmodern perspective, which presupposes that the world is not fixed but is a fluid text. The presupposition of necessary "divine order" that underpinned the former belief is now replaced with a new presuppositional lens, that oppressive narrative power structures hold the world together, and true individual and societal fulfillment are found not in fatalistic submission to pre-ordained structures but through radical equalizing discourse and the deconstruction of the stories of patriarchy. In this instance, one non-Christian worldview (based on its own set of presuppositions) has been uprooted and supplanted by another one (based on another set of presuppositions and guiding metaphors). How could this happen, if you assert that presuppositions can only be uprooted and replaced via regeneration?

Peace,
B.

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by Balder

Okay, say that a person from India grows up with a set of presuppositions about the "natural" hierarchy of individuals based on birth, skin tone, and occupation (the caste system), and about the inescapability of one's "lot" in life -- one's karmic debt and dharmic duty to society. Later in life, this person moves to the US and attends university as an English major. In that environment, exposed repeatedly to thought that is influenced by Marxist, Feminist, and Poststructuralist/Deconstructionist beliefs and the presuppositions that drive them, the Indian person's presuppositions are repeatedly unearthed and challenged. Eventually, this person comes to reject the fatalistic, hierarchical presuppositions into which s/he had been born, and embraces the postmodern perspective, which presupposes that the world is not fixed but is a fluid text. The presupposition of necessary "divine order" that underpinned the former belief is now replaced with a new presuppositional lens, that oppressive narrative power structures hold the world together, and true individual and societal fulfillment are found not in fatalistic submission to pre-ordained structures but through radical equalizing discourse and the deconstruction of the stories of patriarchy. In this instance, one non-Christian worldview (based on its own set of presuppositions) has been uprooted and supplanted by another one (based on another set of presuppositions and guiding metaphors). How could this happen, if you assert that presuppositions can only be uprooted and replaced via regeneration?

Peace,
B.

Balder,

I have been slaking lately in regards to this thread and in regards to reading your posts in particular. Not because they are uninteresting but just because I've had a cold and have been out of town and have just been generally lazy these last few weeks.
However, after this post, I am motivated to get caught back up!
While I, of course, to not agree with your philosphical and religious positions there can be no denying that you have made an elloquent and powerful point with this post. One must give credit where credit is due....

POTD! :first:

Brilliant! :thumb:
If you keep thinking this clearly you'll eventually come to agree with me!


Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Balder]

Thank you, Clete. I'm honored. I think this is a first for me here on TOL.

And who knows... maybe I will come to agree with you more in the future... But be careful! If you keep finding clarity in my thoughts, you may come to agree with me more than you'd bargained for as well!

Peace,
B.

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by Balder

Thank you, Clete. I'm honored. I think this is a first for me here on TOL.

And who knows... maybe I will come to agree with you more in the future... But be careful! If you keep finding clarity in my thoughts, you may come to agree with me more than you'd bargained for as well!

Peace,
B.

:think:

:shocked: