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
Escape Competition Through Authenticity
This reminds me of your tweet about escaping competition through authenticity. It sounds like part of this is a search for who you are. It’s both a search and a recognition because sometimes when we search our egos, we want to be something that we aren’t.…
Formula for first term in Fourier Series
Several videos ago, we introduced the idea of a Fourier series. I could take a periodic function, we started with the example of this square wave, and I could represent it as the sum of weighted sine and cosine functions. Then we took a little bit of an i…
Should We Get Rid of Tipping? The Truth about Service Workers' Wages #Shorts
Race, gender, and overall appearance play a huge role in whether somebody gets a payday. So, some service workers think it might be a good idea to do away with tips altogether. What if the tip was already included in the price of the bill? Of course, pric…
Your Hidden Superpower
We’ve heard rumors of a chosen one. A special birb who has the power to illuminate the vast darkness of the universe, uncovering the great mysteries of the world. We are all born with this power. But only a few are able to master it. We use the same powe…
Safari Live - Day 15 | National Geographic
Watching, maybe they will be the only things that stick around; but if the wind picks up, they may also blow. Hey, my name is Taylor, and on camera with me today is Sebastian. Well, hopefully, our drive is going to be filled with a couple more animals tha…
Joel McHale in a Slot Canyon | Running Wild With Bear Grylls
[music playing] OK, this is going to be tight. BEAR GRYLLS (VOICEOVER): Comedian and actor Joel McHale and I are trying to navigate a deep slop canyon in the Arizona desert. Oh my god. BEAR GRYLLS (VOICEOVER): But it just became dangerously narrow. Oh…