I just looked at your site for the first time in a while and very
much enjoyed it, even though we have different perspectives upon epistemology
and apologetics. Have you ever read anything by Cornelius Van Til or John
Frame? Have you had any exposure to presuppositionalism? Just curious.
yes...I have read some of VanTil's works (Defense of the Faith,
Apologetics), everything by Frame I can get my hands on (Knowledge of
God, apologetics, even unpublished class syllabi from the late '70s), some
of Poythress' works, early Dooye* various others...
By
many of your links, I assume that you're coming from the classical position.
well, the form of the 'presentation' approximates 'approaches', but my
own personal apologetic theory is a bit weird...I don't believe either
classix/presups are broad enough theories to account for the vast
majority of 'apologetic-looking' behavior...Both systems seems to put
apologetic type arguments into a kerygmatic genre, and then they argue
over 'preaching styles'--the Demanding God versus the Beseeching God
false-dichotomy...
I think, rather, that a 'good works' model is a better way of
understanding MOST (i.e. popular and statistical majority) apologetic
discussions...events in which love is communicated by the gentleness of
the answer, the 'relative dignity' communicated, the 'one beggar telling
another beggar where to find bread' motif...under this interpretive
rubric, apologetic systems become simply 'words fit to the situation'...
so, where there are obvious presup issues, I focus on those...where there
is enough of the common-grace-based 'common ground' (even recognized by
van Til in the area of language and concept overlap), I can focus on
historical detail--CLOSER TO THE KERYGMA of CHRIST...
I am ALWAYS trying to get back to the Kerygma from the 'good works' (Col
1.10)...
anyway, I have gone into too much detail here...suffice it to say, I AM
familiar with presuppers, but NOT entirely comfortable that I TRULY have
understood it...I have followed the Sproul/Frame discussions...and
studied 'comparative works' like Lewis' "Testing Christianity's Truth
Claims"...
Although, I noticed something you wrote about a linguistic character to the
universe. I also assume that you've read Kuhn and maybe even Feyerabend.
Perhaps presuppositional apologetics would be right up your alley.
I have lately abandoned (with much of the rest of the philosophy of
science community--see the afterword by Suppe in his "The Structure of
Scientific Theories") the radical theory-laden or sociology-of-science
perspectives...
I didn't
read on in your personal story to see if you ever found an epistemology
that was unshakable, but if not, then check out Van Til's book "A Christian
Theory of Knowledge" or his book "A Survey of Christian Epistemology." The
former is still in print and can be obtained from Great Christian Books.
The Christian worldview has its own epistemology that can stand up to
anything.
My piece on the Linguistic Wall will indicate my view of 'persuasion' in
"empirical" contexts (it's all ostensive) and my piece on self-refuting
arguments is my on-going attempt to 'built up to' unassailable
statements about God...
honestly, I am NOT convinced of the transcendental argument...it just
seems too Anselmic to me so far...there is a very strong possibility that
I don't understand it, so I can't be sure yet...but I am STILL
investigating it...
Intuitively, it makes sense--I just cannot seem to make it 'tight' enough...
still working on it...
In the bonds of His blood, glenn