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
Visualizing Fourier expansion of square wave
So we started with a square wave that had a period of two pi. Then we said, “Hmm, can we represent it as an infinite series of weighted sines and cosines?” Working from that idea, we were actually able to find expressions for the coefficients for a sub 0…
Buoyancy Quiz
We are doing a buoyancy experiment today. If you drop a golf ball into some dishwashing liquid, it sinks very slowly. So why does it sink in the detergent? Because the golf ball is more heavy than the liquid that’s in the container— then the detergent. W…
Are We At The Bottom Of The Market? | Meet Kevin
Foreign [Music] [Applause] [Music] Let’s get started with Mr. O’Leary. Are we at the bottom of the market? No, not yet, but we’re getting close. You know, we were fribulating right now trying to figure out what the earnings next year are going to look l…
Can You Trust Kurzgesagt Videos?
Can you trust Kurzgesagt videos? To answer this question, we’ll first explain how we research them and then talk a bit about past videos, and what we want to achieve with the channel. Making a Kurzgesagt video always begins with a question or an issue. F…
The single most important thing when conducting business!
I just believe in referrals, repeat customers. You know, in our industry, it’s so small. If you do one thing wrong, I mean, your reputation is trash. And I just think that from having a relationship with some of the clients that we do, and we have some ve…
Developing strategies for multiplying two digit decimals
Let’s say I want to multiply 3 point 1, or 3 and 1⁄10, times 2.4, which can also be described as 2 and 4⁄10. So pause the video and see if you can do this. Once again, I’ll give you a hint: see if you can express these as fractions. There are a couple of…