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
Should You Quit Your Job At A Unicorn?
As far as you can tell, the metrics are excellent. Yes, the founders are extremely focused. Yes, your colleagues are very smart and you are very impressed continuing to work with them. Yes, you should probably stay a really long time. Yeah, I mean like th…
Atoms As Big As Mountains — Neutron Stars Explained
Neutron stars are one of the most extreme things in the universe. They’re like giant atom cores. Kilometers in diameter, unbelievably dense and violent. But how can something like this even exist? The life of a star is dominated by two forces being in ba…
WORST PARENTS EVER ... and more! IMG! 19
Some various junk that, from the front, looks like this. And, the world’s first orange alligator. It’s episode 19 of IMG! A new Kinect trick allows you to take photos with your Xbox, and then build them in Minecraft. And here’s some true Tetris love. Whe…
Nintendo FURNITURE??? -- Mind Blow #15
A real Zelda Treasure chest? And coming soon from 7-Eleven: two cups, one straw. Vsauce, Kevin here. This is Mind Blow. A few years we were treated to a functioning NES controller coffee table. Well, here’s a brand new one with custom NES art and a place…
TIL: We Have Lost 50% of Wildlife Since 1970 | Today I Learned
So one thing that really surprised me was from 1970 to 2010. You know, in 40 years, we’ve lost over half our wildlife population. In 2014, there was this study that was done, and basically what they do is look at elephants and tigers and fish and all the…
What if We Nuke the Moon?
What would happen if we were to detonate a very, very powerful nuclear weapon on the Moon? Would the explosion knock its orbit towards Earth, causing tidal waves and misery? Could the Moon be destroyed, showering the Earth in a rain of meteoric death? Du…