Presup Vocabulary: Presuppositions Vs Axioms

In this video, I want to cover some more presuppositional terminology, okay? So now, when we speak of presuppositional methodology, that's kind of a broad umbrella sort of concept, okay?

Within presuppositionalism, you have various branches, various flavors, various styles of presuppositionalism.

And for that reason, that's kind of one of the reasons why some people want to move away from the nomenclature, the terminology presuppositionalism, right?

I'm a presuppositionalist. That term tends to be a little ambiguous.

There can be some confusion. So, for example, you know, I've spoken with people, professional apologists, who are scholars who really are engaged in apologetic ministry, and I've often heard them say, yeah, you know, this issue with apologetic methodology, it's not really a big deal.

You know, sometimes I'm an evidentialist, sometimes I'm a classicalist, and sometimes I'm a presuppositionalist, you know?

And people speak about these apologetic methodologies as though you can dip in and out of them, right?

But that's actually not quite the case, you know? For example, I spoke with a noted apologist,

I won't mention his name, but he said something to the effect, he says sometimes I'm a presuppositionalist, right?

He says that when I am criticizing or critiquing an unbelieving perspective, that's where presuppositionalism really is helpful.

But to present my positive arguments, I am a classical apologist, I use, you know, the theistic arguments, the cosmological argument, the teleological argument, right?

The argument from design, the moral argument, you know, God is the basis for objective, you know, moral values and duties and things like that.

So there are people who think that, you know, if I focus on the presuppositions of the unbeliever, then, you know,

I'm doing presuppositional apologetics. Or if I acknowledge that I have presuppositions and you have presuppositions and so our presuppositions kind of affect the way we interpret things and maybe that's the reason why we're disagreeing, when people speak that way, they think automatically, well, look,

I'm doing presuppositional apologetics. Well, no, right? You can be an evidentialist, you can be a classicalist in your apologetic methodology and still acknowledge that your presuppositions affect the way we interpret the data.

Acknowledging that one has presuppositions doesn't make you a presuppositionalist, okay? A presuppositionalism is different than simply just recognizing that all people have presuppositions, okay?

So that's a very important thing to keep in mind. Like fashion, when the presuppositionalist appeals to evidences for the

Christian faith, that is not the same as appealing to evidentialism, right?

When the presuppositionalist appeals to evidences, that is not the same as appealing to evidentialism as an apologetic methodology.

The presuppositionalist is always a presuppositionalist even when he is appealing to specific evidences for the

Christian faith. You see, within the presuppositional methodology, because we believe that the

Christian worldview provides what we call the necessary preconditions for intelligible experience, in other words, the

Christian worldview provides what must be the case in order for us to make sense out of anything at all, we believe that everything is evidence for God.

The miraculous is evidence for God, and the mundane and non -miraculous is evidence for God.

But when we appeal to evidences as presuppositionalists, we always do so within a consistent presuppositional framework, acknowledging the necessity of the

Christian framework in order to make sense out of anything at all. So that's a very important key thing to keep in mind.

So real briefly, a very important piece of terminology with respect to different flavors of presuppositionalism.

Within the context of presuppositional apologetics, we typically have two main branches. There are other branches and variations, but one of the two main branches of presuppositionalism can be represented by thinkers such as Gordon H.

Clark and Cornelius Van Til, and both are called presuppositionalists and often are confused for one another.

They'll say, well, you guys kind of believe the same thing. Actually, there is a big difference between Clarkian presuppositionalism and Van Tilian presuppositionalism.

And this is where we get into the issue of the important terminology here, axioms and presuppositions.

Axioms and presuppositions. What is an axiom and what is a presupposition within the context of Van Tilian presuppositional apologetics?

Well, first, if we take a Christian thinker like Gordon Clark, he was a presuppositionalist, but he believed that we must pick axioms, these fundamental starting assumptions upon which we build the rest of our worldview.

And you can pick any axiom you want. Logic is this truth that I'm going to hold onto axiomatically, and I'm going to build my worldview based on that.

Empiricism. Knowledge comes through the sensation, so the reliability of my sense experience. I'm going to start with that as a given, and then

I'm going to build my worldview up from that. And so an axiom is kind of this fundamental bedrock foundation upon which you build everything else and you logically deduce from those axioms the other various points of your worldview perspective.

Now, what is the difference between an axiom and a presupposition within the context of the

Van Tilian school of thought? Well, for Gordon Clark, axioms could not be demonstrated to be true.

And the reason for that is if you pick an axiom as your fundamental starting point upon which all else in your worldview is built, if you try to demonstrate the truth of your axiom, then your axiom is no longer your axiom.

It's no longer that foundation. Because in order to prove my axiom, I must appeal to something more fundamental than it to validate the axiom.

But if I appeal to something more fundamental than my axiom, then my axiom is not my axiom.

Right? It's not the most fundamental bedrock, and so I have to appeal to something else. So you can't do that. So Gordon Clark was fine with saying you pick an axiom, you can't prove the axiom, but the things that we can logically deduce from those axioms, when we're able to build a coherent worldview system, this is a wonderful thing.

And the worldview that answers the hard questions the best, the most consistent and coherent worldview perspective, is the best perspective.

Now granted, Gordon Clark believed that the Christian worldview was true, okay? But he believed that we started with this unprovable axiom, and we build up from there the rest of our worldview, and Christianity is the best and most consistent worldview perspective.

Gordon Clark started with the axiom, the Bible is the word of God, and he believed that from that axiom, but from the

Bible being the word of God, you can logically deduce an entire worldview system from that, and of course that system is logically coherent, it is rational, it provides the preconditions for intelligible experience, and all these other sorts of things.

Okay? Now, when we speak of a presupposition, we gotta be very careful. A presupposition is very similar to an axiom, because a presupposition is also a fundamental starting point in our thinking, right?

And so we do not prove our presuppositions by appealing to more fundamental presuppositions or fundamental foundations, okay?

So in that sense, an axiom and a presupposition, from within the perspective of say like the

Van Til school of thought, they're very similar. But unlike Gordon Clark, who believed you couldn't prove your axiom to be true by appealing to something more fundamental, right?

You kind of just held it, and he believed the Christian worldview was the best, most consistent worldview. For Van Til, he believed that while the presuppositions that someone holds are fundamental, he believed you could actually prove the truth of your presupposition.

But the thing for Van Til is that he believed you can prove your presupposition not by appealing to something more fundamental, that would be wrong -headed and there's problems with that, but you can prove your presuppositions transcendentally.

And what he meant by that is you can prove the truth of your presuppositions by the impossibility of the contrary.

You can demonstrate that your presuppositions are true in that it's denial, you need to affirm it, you need to presuppose it, okay?

And so unlike Gordon Clark, who believed your starting points were first principles, you couldn't demonstrate them to be true,

Cornelius Van Til believed with his transcendental argument that you could demonstrate the truth of your presuppositions, okay?

And so that's kind of a unique difference between a Van Tilian presupposition and a

Clarkian axiom, okay? Again, so there's much more to be said here, and even as I've explained it, there's so much more to kind of go into, and you know, folks who are on the

Clarkian end of the spectrum, I'm sure they can give some pushback on various points, and so these issues are debated with respect to these different flavors of presuppositionalism.

But perhaps, hopefully, this brief video has provided you a context for understanding the difference between, say, a

Clarkian axiom and a Van Tilian presupposition, all right? That's it for this short video.