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
Charlie Munger: How To Get Rich By Owning High Quality Stocks
Well, when you found Ben Graham, he was unconventional and he was very smart and of course that was very attractive to you. And then when you found out it worked and you could make a lot of money with sitting on your ass, of course you were an instant con…
Why Moths are Obsessed with Lamps | National Geographic
The story of the lamp in the moth is one of fatal attraction. The theory is that these primarily nocturnal insects have evolved to travel by the light of the moon and the stars. This way of travel is called transverse orientation. An easy way to think abo…
Example exercise using limit flow chart
In a previous video, we introduced this flowchart that helps us think about what strategies to use when trying to determine a limit of a function as it approaches a point. What we’re going to do in this video is now try to apply that in several example ex…
You Can't Win Until You Overcome These Obstacles
It’s just a matter of time until you have to overcome these, so you might as well get ready. Here are 15 obstacles you will be facing in life. Welcome to alux.com, the place where future billionaires come to get inspired. Number one: your parents’ limite…
How Cod Saved the Vikings
When I was in the Lofoten Islands in northern Norway, I came across one of the strangest sights I have ever seen: cod. [♫ ominous low tone fades in ♪] Hundreds of thousands of them, strung up on racks, [♫ ominous low tone fades in ♪] their stench blanketi…
Building Your Board | Glenn Kelman
I’m Glenn, um, and I’m here to talk about building the board. I was surprised that James Slavit, the Greylock partner, asked me to discuss this topic because I’ve actually had sort of a fraught relationship with our board. In fact, I really didn’t have mu…