Freedomain Radio

When I was a Christian, I got caught up in presuppositionalism, and it led me off course in my life. It is why I first wanted to pursue philosophy. However, I began to realize there was something not quite right about it and I am now writing a thorough refutation of it. It's practically already written in my notes, but I have to organize them and give it a good structure and flow. Cheung claims that when presuppositionalism is applied to Christianity, it is irrefutable. Unfortunately for him, however, it's not.

The reason I ask is that not many people know about presuppositionalism, as far as I know, and even less about Cheung. But there are many who are now consuming his philosophy, and I believe we will start to see more of it in the debate between reason and faith. Since I understand his system of thought, I recognize that though it can be refuted, it is a very powerful argument and has the ability to do a lot of damage.

I don't want to put something out there that no one is going to pay attention to because they are not aware of the threat. On the other hand, it is a threat and I feel what I am writing is too important to be kept away - even if people don't understand it.

So, I just want to know if there is anyone here who is familiar with any of this.

While I have seen and do see the "aftereffects" of this mindset, I did not know it had a specific name and I had never heard of Cheung.

Anymore, when someone takes the stance that "the bible is the flawless word of god" or some other similar nonsense, I simply walk away. I really have no desire to interact with someone like that.

With that said, I am curious as to what the whole thing is about. It sounds as if you've invested a significant amount of time and energy in it. I gather you are experiencing some anxiety surrounding "putting your work out there", is that accurate?

Michael.J:

While I have seen and do see the "aftereffects" of this mindset, I did not know it had a specific name and I had never heard of Cheung.

Anymore, when someone takes the stance that "the bible is the flawless word of god" or some other similar nonsense, I simply walk away. I really have no desire to interact with someone like that.

With that said, I am curious as to what the whole thing is about. It sounds as if you've invested a significant amount of time and energy in it. I gather you are experiencing some anxiety surrounding "putting your work out there", is that accurate?

I'm not really anxious about it, I just want to know if it will end up being a complete waste of time. While he's not too popular now, Cheung has created a following for himself, and the arguments are not easy to deal with. Most of the attempted refutations I've seen are wildly off the mark, and misrepresent the argument. His presuppositionalism is also a little bit different than what you will find out there, if you find it. It has the appearance of being on MUCH more secure footing.

I can understand not wanting to talk to people like that... and usually I am the same way (remind me to tell you about this one girl, one time...). However, this has the potential to make a lot of trouble. A lot of trouble that could be avoided, and ignoring it will not make it go away. One of the things I point out in my project is that intellectually speaking, this is the last place for Christianity to go. It does appear to give it some intellectual footing, and a lot of people could be fooled by it. Once I personally realized its shortcomings, I became an atheist (after a few weeks of agnosticism).

But yes, I have put a lot of time and energy into it.

Has no one else heard of Cheung and Presuppositionalism?

 No, but I'll check him out.  Is there really anything new there?

Old Whig:

 No, but I'll check him out.  Is there really anything new there?

Vincent Cheung is most often interpreted in the lights of the more popular form of presuppositional apologetics, from Cornelius Van Til and Greg Bahnsen. Because of this, many of the criticisms launched against him really do not apply. He has a theological system that is rationalistic, based upon the Bible as an axiom. Though it is very similar, there are some deep-rooted differences and the biggest issue is to be able to interpret him on his own terms. Much of what he affirms follows Gordon H Clark.

What I've found in my studies is that its fairly easy to at least rebut popular presuppositionalism (Bahnsen/Van Til), and not much harder to refute. The Cheung/Clark presuppositionalism is much more difficult to work through, but when you do you find that there are some very simple and surprisingly devastating counter-arguments.

Christians don't care about Cheung and refuting arguments because they already believe. Unbelievers don't care about Cheung and refuting arguments because they see it as frivolous, offensive, and something that can be safely ignored. However, the few that DO pay attention to him seem to not understand what he's really advocating. The kinds of things he says though are attempts to answer very basic philosophical questions.

You can find all of the stuff he's written at his website: http://www.vincentcheung.com/

I read the wikipedia article on Presupposition apologetics. It seems pretty wacky, i could be off but isn't it just trying to argue that the bible/scripture should be used as a heuristic to compare against other world views etc because it is the best? Basically saying, the bible has the best track record, therefore we should use it as the basis for comparison, and if anything disagree's with the bible it's wrong.

Seems like lunacy. If you believe in the bible, then of course your using it as your heuristic, if not . . then not!

 Funny, I have no trouble logging in at work, but I can't do it at home.  Somebody trying to tell me something?

Anyway... I saw that and sample some of his stuff there.  Can't say that anything I've read so far is convincing enough to get me to jump back on the old hamster-wheel.  He makes a lot of assertions...  Well, you're writing the book.  I don't need to tell you.

rpellow:

I read the wikipedia article on Presupposition apologetics. It seems pretty wacky, i could be off but isn't it just trying to argue that the bible/scripture should be used as a heuristic to compare against other world views etc because it is the best? Basically saying, the bible has the best track record, therefore we should use it as the basis for comparison, and if anything disagree's with the bible it's wrong.

Seems like lunacy. If you believe in the bible, then of course your using it as your heuristic, if not . . then not!

No, that's one of the misconceptions about it. Their argument is that the Bible MUST be true because it is the only worldview that makes sense of the many bits of knowledge we take for granted, while 'unbelieving worldviews' always founder upon these basic questions. For instance, the atheist supposedly believes that all that exists is matter in motion, but this is antithetical to the existence of immaterial entities such as (supposedly) the mind and laws of logic.

And that it 'seems like lunacy' is precisely why it's ignored. Of course it is in error, but it's not *obviously* in error, as many people suppose. It really does deserve an adequate answer.

Old Whig:

Funny, I have no trouble logging in at work, but I can't do it at home.  Somebody trying to tell me something?

Anyway... I saw that and sample some of his stuff there.  Can't say that anything I've read so far is convincing enough to get me to jump back on the old hamster-wheel.  He makes a lot of assertions...  Well, you're writing the book.  I don't need to tell you.

I wouldn't guess that it would be very convincing, and that's because much of it is not easy to understand. It's bizarre and contrary to common sense, but that's no argument against it. As for Cheung, yes he does make a lot of assertions, but he also sets up a justificatory framework by which he justifies (or pretends to justify, as I plan to point out) his assertions. His method is to ask the opponent to do the same, getting to the foundation of why or how they know any thing at all. He demands them to be thoroughly rational (by which he really means 'rationalistic' - a la Descartes), and if a person's fundamental epistemological belief is 'irrational' he claims to have exposed them as fools. He says the opponent of Christianity therefore has no right to call the Christian an irrational fool. But, he confuses 'irrational' with 'non-rational' or 'non-rationalistic'. Something is not irrational just because it's not founded on a principle of rationalism.

This is not the only thing Cheung is confused about.

He also employs philosophical critiques of empiricism and the scientific method (which he gets from Gordon Clark). So, if an opponent defers to observation and science, he will launch these criticisms and leave them nothing to stand on. (or so it seems).

Unfortunately, it does succeed in arming Christians who understand it with some debate tricks that most everyday people cannot break out of, if they are caught in the trap. I've read only one paper by a professional philosopher that addresses presuppositionalism, but it addresses the more popular form. He does a pretty good job, but much of what he says does not apply to Cheung.

The popular presuppositionalism uses abductive arguments to argue for the necessity of the existence of God. The easy argument there is that this god that it 'proves' isn't necessarily the god of the bible. Cheung, on the other hand, seeks to prove the necessary truth of the Bible against all other systems of thought - and, if the Bible is true, then there must be a god.

BTW... I like your signature.

P.S. Someone named 'Aquascum' wrote a 'refutation' of Cheung, here. The criticisms contained in this are way off the mark, and if you find yourself thinking the same things as you read Cheung (or Clark), just know that there are already adequate answers to them. Most of them are fallacious arguments anyhow.

I'll tell you what - to quote Boomhower - this conversation has already sharpened my mind.  Along with a year of listening to Stef and James Hall's Tools of Thinking which I got from The Teaching Company.  It's pretty good; he calls himself a Rational Impericist too.  I'd have no idea what he was talking about, though, if I hadn't minored in Philosophy in college.

I pulled out and printed up Ultimate Questions and Presuppositional Confrontations, I'm 12 pages into the latter and I've gotta say, the guy doesn't seem to want me to continue.  It's one insult after the other.  Of course, that book is designed to encourage and strengthen the opposition [I mean his own side] rather than make converts.

You know, the trouble with the "Quick Reply" window is that I can't move it out of the way to look at your post and remind myself what I started to say.

I was once stuck in something similar and I can tell you that having it refuted was most definitely not the way I left Christianity.

eulercircles:

On the other hand, it is a threat and I feel what I am writing is too important to be kept away - even if people don't understand it.

Sorry if this seems confrontational, as it's not my intent (feel free to publish your refutation), but I am wondering.  What is your evidence that this is more than a marginal threat compared to the huge prevalence of much weaker arguments for direct child abuse ?

Mr. C:

Sorry if this seems confrontational, as it's not my intent (feel free to publish your refutation), but I am wondering.  What is your evidence that this is more than a marginal threat compared to the huge prevalence of much weaker arguments for direct child abuse ?

I am not quite sure what you are asking. Do you mean arguments to the effect that teaching religion to children is abusive?

http://www.vincentcheung.com/books/presupp2010.pdf

 

It is only because you have been made in the image of God and have an innate
knowledge about him that you can even speak of rationality, since without Christ – the
Reason of God (John 1:1)10 – there is no foundation even for logic. On the other hand,
from the Christian perspective, rationality characterizes the very structure of God's mind,
and the laws of logic describe the way he thinks. Since he has made us in his image, we
are also able to use logic, and since the same God who created us also created the
universe, logic corresponds to reality. If you reject Christian presuppositions, then on
what basis do you use logic, and on what basis do you say that logic corresponds to
reality? You attempt to use reason, but you deny Reason itself. You claim to think
logically, but you deny the very person who has structured your rational mind in the
likeness of his own rational mind. Thus in exalting reason without exalting God, you
contradict yourself and incriminate yourself, and show that you have suppressed the truth
about God.

Man, I've got to thank you, that was an awesome, earth shattering mind-fuck. It took me two hours to wade though it.

 

Let's just start with Hume's inquiry. (If you haven't read it, I highly suggest it)

To the question "On what basis do you say logic correspond to reality?" Hume answers: None but the assumption, strong pull or tendancy of man to this effect.

Now Cheung weaves his tapestry on top of Hume. First he posits there must  be some intermediary for reason to be of any affect (note that Hume already put the intermediary into the structure of the mind).  And then he goes to disembody this intermediary into a thing of it's out right and existence without actually bringing positive evidence (reasons) to suppose it is of its own right and existence. In order to avoid the need to have a reason to posit this reason of the mysterious link between reason and reality, he reasons he can just define it as a thing whose nature is reason and need no more reason than that.  "That REASON is the reason, reason and reality match." The mistake is a bit hard to categorize, but I would say floating abstraction here as it pulls reason away from any concrete we experience, and bodering upon the theory of forms, that our reason is a reflection of a perfect reason in another realm.

 For some reason theology always comes back to the theory of forms or metaphysical realism.

Ok so i've been reading but i still don't get what is so unique about this argument. . . It still feels like another "the bible just HAS to be right!!!" Like, if you say it very strongly, and in different ways, it might stick?