[asa] Re: Truth & delusion (was Greetings...)

I realize that with most exchanges and witnessing, very little of it
would be at this formal level. Nevertheless, would you then, if asked
to debate with a highly rationalistic atheist, turn down the invitation
and walk away knowing the futility of matching their presuppositional
stance with yours? Or would you look for the little bit of common
language that might be there. I agree there is probably some balance,
but since you said you lean to the presuppositional side, would that
undercut much of the approach of modern apologetics to those who lean
that way?

I've little (no) knowledge of Barth or Aquinas (except indirectly) --
and it would be interesting to know more about Barth's take on natural
law -- i.e. how he comes out on the 'none' side. But I've understood
and been influenced by Lewis' writings that you mention. If there's a
work by Barth you would recommend on this ...

It seems to me that at the footing of our reason we all will run up
against an impassable presuppositional layer. But meanwhile, above
that, we work with what we have relegating the deeper unknowns to the
realm of faith. I like what you say (which I think is similar) in the
first paragraph pasted below -- regarding reason. It has a very
"Lewisian feel" about it.

--Merv

David Opderbeck wrote:
> ...snip
> Now, that isn't to say that there is /zero/ common ground between us
> and unbelievers. But, I don't think that common ground is
> unadulterated reason, because there is no such thing. Rather, the
> common ground is something of the image of God left over after the
> fall; it includes reason, but it is reason of a particular sort, with
> a foundation in something deeper than reason itself. Lewis in other
> work grounds that shared knowledge in natural law (or the "tao" as he
> puts it in "Abolition of Man"). We could of course have a vigorous
> debate about how much of "natural law" survives the fall -- from a
> Barthian "none" to a Thomist "lots."
>
> The apologetic point: you're outlining, I think, the never-ending
> debate between evidentialist and presuppositional apologetics. Lewis
> certainly was in the evidentialist camp, though I'm not sure his
> approach was quite so rationalistic as some evidentialists are today.
> Personally, I lean more towards the presuppositional camp. I'm not
> really sure there's enough common ground to truly "speak their
> language" when it comes to what properly grounds a truth claim -- how
> can there be, when they reject the very ground of Truth (God)? I'm
> also concerned that efforts to "speak their language" -- such as the
> strong ID program -- end up giving away epistemic ground that
> shouldn't be surrendered. OTOH, I'm not sure I'm a complete Barthian
> when it comes to natural law. I tend to agree with Lewis that there
> are some snatches of common ground in certain things that nearly
> everyone intiuitively as well as rationally knows are good and true
> (and bad and wrong), deep down. Actually, Lewis probably offers a
> good lesson to all of us evangelicals especially in how to balance the
> evidential and presuppositional aspects of apologetics together.
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Apr 14 17:08:04 2007