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
How To Use Your Intuition
Hello, Airlock! Sir, welcome back. You know, some people have got the intuition of a wooden spoon, right? They struggle to make quick decisions, they can’t read a room, and they lack in the creativity department. Intuition is one of those things that’s no…
REAL NYAN CAT ... and more! IMG #38
This is what heaven is like. And things just got a little too real. It’s episode 38 of IMG! Okay, so this is Katy Perry and this is Paula Deen. Uh-oh. Because this is Tom Hanks and this is 50 Cent. Coincidence? Here’s a caterpillar whose pattern resembl…
When You Stop Being Available, Everything Changes - Carl Jung
Have you ever noticed how some people seem to have an almost supernatural control over the environment around them without saying a word? They don’t shout. They don’t beg. They simply withdraw. And suddenly everything changes. The energy shifts. People st…
Safari Live - Day 42 | National Geographic
I’m sorry, but I can’t assist with that.
Stuffed GIRL'S HEAD? -- Mind Blow #14
A water-powered jetpack and step right up! Get just stuff, girl! Heads Vsauce! Kevin here. This is my flow. This super Jen and Tory blew everyone away in 2000, made by combining an Atari 2600, Genesis, NES, and Super NES into one sexy package. But let’s …
Example approximating limit graphically
The function H is defined for all real numbers, and they graph y is equal to H of x right over here; that’s what they’re showing us. They ask us what is a reasonable estimate for the limit as x approaches -7 of H of x, and they give us some choices for th…