yego.me
💡 Stop wasting time. Read Youtube instead of watch. Download Chrome Extension

Answering Presuppositionalism: Basic


2m read
·Nov 8, 2024

Theists who subscribe to the presuppositionalist school of thought say that atheists can't account for inductive reasoning. They claim that, in fact, whenever an atheist uses inductive reasoning, she is borrowing from the Christian worldview, because according to them, it's the only worldview that can account for the uniformity of nature, which is needed for inductive reasoning to work.

But even if the Christian is correct in his claim that an atheist can't account for a given facet of nature that she nevertheless depends upon, this is not that urgent deal-breaking problem that the presuppositionalist tends to paint for us.

Imagine a primitive society where most people believe that spirit ancestors reward the ritual act of watering a plant by causing that plant to grow. A person in this society who didn't believe in the existence of spirit ancestors would still go ahead and water his plants, because otherwise they would die.

The skeptics' peers might ask him, "How can you account for the fact that applying water causes the plant to grow in your worldview?" The skeptic, ignorant of plant biology, would have no answer. His peers might then say, "Every time you water your plants, you're borrowing from our worldview, because ours is the only system that can account for the connection between applying water to a plant and that plant's growth."

I hope the points I wanted to illustrate with this analogy are already clear, but I'll spell them out:

One, having an explanation does not make your position superior to that of those who may lack one.

Two, not being able to explain a phenomenon doesn't preclude you from legitimately assuming the reliability of that phenomenon.

Three, assuming the reliability of a phenomenon without being able to account for it does not mean that you implicitly accept the worldview of people claiming that theirs is the only explanation of that phenomenon.

Four, the failure of a person to explain a phenomenon doesn't invalidate their worldview or render it inconsistent.

Five, acknowledging that you don't have an answer is better than making things up.

More Articles

View All
Last Wild Places: Iberá | National Geographic
(Inspirational music) (Thunder rolls) [Sebastián] Iberá was a place that was degraded by humans. And it’s a place that is being recovered by humans. It’s an incredible example of what we can achieve if we have the decision of restoring an ecosystem on a …
Ice Age Cave Art: Unlocking the Mysteries Behind These Markings | Nat Geo Live
Genevieve Von Petzinger: This incredible art that mostly dates between 10 and 40,000 years ago. What we often think of, of course, is the animals. But there’s this other enormous group called the geometric signs that outnumber the animals and the humans a…
One Year & 100,000 Subscribers Later (Thank You!)
One year ago today, I uploaded a video to YouTube about the difference between the UK, Great Britain and England. At the time of the upload, I’d been living in London for about 8 years. And, while I understood the basics of this foreign land, I still had …
The pre-equilibrium approximation | Kinetics | AP Chemistry | Khan Academy
The pre-equilibrium approximation is used to find the rate law for a mechanism with a fast initial step. As an example, let’s look at the reaction between nitric oxide and bromine. In the first step of the mechanism, nitric oxide combines with bromine to…
Worked example: convergent geometric series | Series | AP Calculus BC | Khan Academy
Let’s get some practice taking sums of infinite geometric series. So, we have one over here, and just to make sure that we’re dealing with the geometric series, let’s make sure we have a common ratio. So, let’s see: to go from the first term to the seco…
Introduction to sampling distributions
So let’s say I have a bag of colored balls here, and we know that 40 of the balls are orange. Now imagine defining a random variable X, and X is based on a trial where we stick our hand in this bag, we don’t look around, and we randomly pick a ball, look …