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
UK National Parks in 100 Seconds | National Geographic
[Music] What do the UK’s national parks really look like? To see what these landscapes are made up of, let’s go on a walk. Each second of the walk reveals one percent of our national parks and how they appear from above. Are you ready for the UK’s nationa…
Terry Crews Skydives Over Iceland | Running Wild with Bear Grylls
Like a dream. Let’s get your chute up. I’m ready. Here we go. BEAR GRYLLS: Terry Crews and I just landed on a small airfield in the Icelandic mountains. Last night, he told me that skydiving was on his bucket list. Well, Terry, be careful what you wish f…
I'm Quitting. My Last Video.
You know, I originally had something planned out for this video, but then I realized it. I may as well just speak from the heart. So, I think I owe it to everybody to explain what’s going on and why I’m going to be leaving YouTube. It sucks because, you …
Sounds That Make You Go Barf | Brain Games
I would love for you to give me your honest opinion about our new headphones. Would you like to try them out? Bring it! Let’s go try this one on. Throw them on, check it out. Pick it up, it’s so clear. Excellent! Oh, I’ll be jamming on the subway with th…
When Cities Were Cesspools of Disease | Nat Geo Explores
Imagine living in darkness. You’re in a roof the size of a closet with your entire family. I can’t see a thing, but you can hear and smell everything—every breath, every sneeze, every cough that hits your face. This is life in a 19th-century city. There’…
Tax multiplier, MPC, and MPS | AP Macroeconomics | Khan Academy
So in this video we’re going to revisit another super simple economy that only has a farmer and a builder on an island, and we’re going to review what we learned about the multiplier and the marginal propensity to consume. But we’re going to do it a littl…