top of page
Search
Writer's pictureTelosbound

Unjustified Presuppositions



I recently posted a YouTube short in which I briefly summarized five arguments for the existence of God. Most of these arguments could be classified as “classical theistic” arguments, such as the cosmological argument, the teleological argument, and the ontological argument. While I was anticipating many critical and dismissive comments from atheists and agnostics, I was surprised to see that many of the comments criticizing these ancient arguments did not come from atheists but from fellow Orthodox Christians! While some of these individuals simply dismissed the arguments as invalid (for reasons that will be addressed below), the majority of the skeptical Orthodox Christians simply saw the arguments as limited to “generic theism.” That is to say, their critiques of the classical arguments were not that they were necessarily invalid but that they were too general and could be used by Christians, Muslims, and Jews alike (despite the latter two rejecting the essence of the Christian revelation; the Triune God). I was told to abandon the classical arguments and adopt a “presuppositional” approach to apologetics.

While the purpose of this post is not to provide an in-depth explanation of the presuppositional method, a brief summary is necessary.


Presuppositional apologetics began, at least as an explicitly defined movement, with the Dutch Reformed theologian Abraham Kuyper in the 19th century and was later popularized and developed by a fellow Reformed theologian, Cornelius Van Til. It emphasizes the importance of presuppositions, or foundational beliefs, in shaping one’s worldview. The presuppositional apologetic method aims to demonstrate the truth of Christianity (and, in the online Orthodox sphere, the aim is to demonstrate the truth of the Orthodox Christian worldview uniquely) by exposing the inconsistencies and inadequacies of alternative worldviews. For the presuppositionalists, presuppositions are inescapable, and circularity is a universal feature of all worldviews. Thus, the goal is not to provide an absolute logical “ground” for every belief but to discern what presuppositions are necessary for a coherent worldview. The method is essentially a process of elimination, and the ultimate goal, from the Orthodox Christian perspective, is to eliminate every non-Orthodox worldview as self-defeating, inconsistent, or incoherent.


I think that presuppositionalism is an entirely legitimate method of apologetics. My goal with this post is not to critique presuppositionalism but to discern how it relates to the communal ontology and Orthodox Christian theology more broadly. However, in doing so, I wish to critique certain ways in which the method has been used by Orthodox Christians online. I believe that the promises of the presuppositional approach (that one can deconstruct and undermine every worldview aside from one’s own) can result in three main temptations: (1) to utilize presuppositionalism in contexts where a different approach would be more suitable both rhetorically and logically, (2) to adopt an exclusivist approach to theology and philosophy wherein one arrogantly dismisses distinct apologetic methods without understanding them, and (3) to base one’s faith in apologetics, as opposed to the experience of God.


To begin with the first temptation, the most notable example of this error is the presuppositional “refutation” of the problem of evil. According to the presuppositionalist, there are no criteria for right and wrong if there is no God. If there are no criteria for right and wrong, then there is no basis to appeal to the existence of “evil,” as the problem of evil does. Thus, the atheist cannot use the problem of evil as an argument against God without being inconsistent and presupposing good and evil, and therefore God. Aside from being perhaps the most unpersuasive response to the problem of evil imaginable, it is also simply wrong. The problem of evil does not presuppose the existence of objective morality. The problem of evil, as intelligent atheists typically formulate it, is an internal critique of the Christian worldview. It states that since Christians believe in objective morality, the existence of evil (according to our own standards) and our definition of God form an irreconcilable internal inconsistency. In this context, I have found discussing Orthodox Christian anthropology and our understanding of sin much more fruitful.1

Since the persuasive power of the problem of evil is how it supposedly reveals an internal inconsistency within the theistic worldview, I have found it helpful to discuss the inner harmony of the Orthodox Christian worldview, especially with reference to the communal ontology. To be clear, my goal with this critique is not to undermine presuppositionalism as an approach but to demonstrate that it is not always necessarily the most useful or logical when arguing with those of a different worldview.


To address the second temptation, I think this issue is much more pressing and does raise relevant concerns for the modern Church as it adjusts to the rapid digitalization of discourse. The dismissal of alternative apologetic methods that is unfortunately common in online Orthodox Christian circles is problematic, specifically in the context of classical arguments for God, primarily because it contradicts the universal testimony of the Church fathers. St. John of Damascus considered the cosmological argument as sufficient evidence for the existence of God,2


St. Gregory Palamas opens the 150 Chapters with an outline of the cosmological argument, and St. Gregory Nazianzen considered those who ignored the clear evidence of design (the teleological argument) to be “wanting of sense.”3


There are countless examples of the Church fathers borrowing arguments from the Ancient pagan philosophers as proof of the God of the Bible. Hence, given the Orthodox belief in the authority of the Church fathers, we should at least be wary of dismissing the classical arguments.


There are very few examples of the presuppositional apologetic in the Church fathers. There are far more examples of classical argumentation. However, tradition has never been a static reality, but, like the mustard seed, it grows and blossoms as it finds an ever-increasing number of ways to express the mysteries of the Logos. As St. Vincent of Lerins explains in his Commonitorium, the catholic Church does believe in doctrinal development, but development must always be consistent with doctrine that has already been established. This being the case, I see no problem with the Church adopting presuppositionalism and using it for its own ends. However, I do see a problem with adopting presuppositionalism to the exclusion of classical argumentation, as this would contradict St. Vincent’s criteria of genuine development.


Let us now address the criticism made against the classical arguments. One of the most common objections presuppositionalists have against, for example, the cosmological argument, is that it presupposes (without justifying) causation. As David Hume demonstrated, causation is not a given and can be subject to doubt. Thus, any modern skeptic can simply dismiss the cosmological argument as invalid and dependent upon unjustified presuppositions.


I am sympathetic to this critique and accept that it is a limitation of the cosmological argument as it has been traditionally formulated. This is why we at telosbound have attempted to reformulate the cosmological argument from the perspective of Orthodox Christian theology and have grounded it not in the reality of “causation” per se but the reality of relation. By grounding the argument in relation as opposed to mere causation, we have also limited the nature of the “first relation” to one that contains a principle of relation in itself, which evidently points towards the Trinity. We deduced the necessity of relation in a way quite akin to the presuppositional approach by demonstrating the absurdity of any “self-relating” or “self-referential” ontology. While a complete overview and justification of this argument is beyond the scope of this post, I mention it just to note that we would have never made these discoveries if we had simply dismissed the cosmological argument as antiquated or incomplete.

I have heard some people go so far as to say that the cosmological argument isn’t simply limited by its unjustified presuppositions, but invalid. I have never understood their reasoning here. If causation is an objective fact about reality (and, from an Orthodox Christian perspective, it is), and the first cause argument derives objectively valid conclusions on the basis of causation, then the first cause argument is an objectively valid argument. An argument is not made invalid/unsound simply because it contains certain presuppositions that are not justified by it. The relevant question is whether these presuppositions are true, and, as any Orthodox Christian will admit, they are.


And it is not only Orthodox Christians who will accept the reality of causation but everyone with common sense. This is why the vast majority of atheist critiques of the cosmological argument are not based on a rejection of causation but critique the theistic conclusions derived from it (by appealing to some natural “first cause” or by asserting that God Himself would require a cause, both of which are easily refutable). Thus, even from a practical point of view, I see no inherent strength in the presuppositional apologetic over and against the cosmological argument.

The second most common critique against the classical arguments is that they only prove a “generic god” and not the Christian God. I also sympathize with this critique. However, unlike many Orthodox presuppositionalists, our reaction to this limitation is not to dismiss the arguments but to try and find the Trinity in them. Since the classical arguments for God are objectively sound (according to the universal testimony of the fathers), and God is objectively Trinity, we believe there must be some way in which all of the arguments can be formulated so as to prove the Trinity. As discussed above, we have already attempted to do this with the cosmological argument.


However, I also believe that even if the arguments could only prove a “generic god,” this would not be a very strong reason to reject them, especially in an age where atheism is the greatest threat to the Church. I’m sure any Orthodox Christian would agree that a deist is closer to Christianity than an atheist and that someone who is convinced of the reality of a divine Creator can be more easily persuaded of Christianity than a stiff-necked naturalist. And as Fr. Dumitru Staniloae explains in Volume 1 of The Experience of God, insofar as Muslims and Jews proclaim faith in the One God, they possess a portion of the divinely revealed truth. Of course, they do not possess the whole truth, as the whole truth only exists within the Orthodox Church. In any case, I see no reason to reject an argument that proves an aspect of the truth (provided the argument does not negate other aspects of the truth). But I don’t want to dwell too long on this point, as I believe the classical arguments can be formulated in a Trinitarian/communal manner.

The Truth is One, yet the Truth is also Many because the Truth is God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Every truth discovered in creation is a truth about God, of his eternal logoi. Since Truth and Being are mutually interior, every worldview that deviates from the Truth, insofar as it deviates, deviates into nothing at all. It will fall into inconsistencies, and the revelation of these inconsistencies is the great strength of the presuppositional approach. I believe that presuppositionalism is most useful when it is understood from the perspective of the communal ontology (which is nothing more than Orthodox Christian metaphysics with a specific emphasis on communion as the essence of the Christian revelation).4


This is because the communal ontology provides a specific criterion of truth (communion) and a definition of falsehood (self-relation). Thus, it offers a specific lens for analyzing worldviews that contradict Orthodox Christianity to efficiently and clearly discern where they fail. From the perspective of the communal ontology, since Truth is communion, the point where every worldview collapses is where it turns from communion. For example, the failure of Thomistic theology ultimately stems from Thomas’ definition of God as Actus Purus, which collapses all distinctions into a self-referential (and, therefore, empty and monotonous) “one.” I hope that moving forward, the “communion” between presuppositionalism and the communal ontology will prove fruitful.


To address the last temptation, I will only say that the Church has never understood apologetics (and any abstract philosophizing) as the ground and center of our faith. In the aforementioned The Experience of God, Fr. Staniloae discusses St. Gregory Nazianzen’s use of the teleological argument and then says that:

…for Saint Gregory this intellectual knowledge of God which has been rationally deduced from the world is still insufficient. Such knowledge needs completion through a higher knowledge which is an acknowledgement of the very mystery of God, an apophatic knowledge, a superior way of grasping his infinite richness — one which, precisely because of its infinity, cannot be understood or ex­pressed.

Apophatic knowledge is, according to Staniloae, the direct experience of God as infinite Person, a knowledge that transcends rationality. This apophatic knowledge, as the experience of God, is the basis of our faith. While I am not claiming that this is inherent to presuppositionalism or making a judgment on anyone’s spiritual state, from my years in the online Orthodox Christian community, I have noticed that some people act as if apologetics is the basis of their faith and that if their method of apologetics were to be proven false, they would have to abandon Christ. This leads to a sort of spiritual anxiety, resulting in intellectual arrogance, wherein every non-Orthodox worldview must be immediately refuted on logical/philosophical grounds, or else the Orthodox faith is put into question. But unfortunately, the ability to immediately refute every worldview is simply not possible for most people. For example, I do not understand Hegel’s philosophical system; arguably, no one does. There are several competing (and mutually exclusive) interpretations of Hegel amongst scholars, so one cannot even discern what Hegel himself believed on certain questions in order to refute him. However, I am not a Hegelian because I know that whatever Hegel believed was not Orthodox Christianity, and I found Christ in the Orthodox Church.

We must have confidence in our faith so that we may have boldness when confronting and investigating other worldviews. But this confidence cannot be based solely or primarily on apologetics or philosophy because if it is, then our faith in God is limited to our fallen rationality.5


But if our confidence is based on the direct experience of God and the unshakeable faith His Spirit grows in our hearts, then we can truly be bold as we face the physical, intellectual, and spiritual challenges of this world. As St. Sophrony of Essex told Fr. Florovsky: “...a person who knows what he himself believes, who truly lives the fullness of Orthodoxy, cannot have a thought about the loss of this fullness.”6

------------ 1See my video “The Cosmic Fall and Natural Evil.”

2See Chapter 3 of book 1 of On the Orthodox Faith.

3Fr. Dumitru Staniloae, The Experience of God (Volume 1).

5And as Fr. Pavel Florensky proves in The Pillar and Ground of the Truth, God cannot be found through pure rationalism.

6Alexis Torrance, Fr. Georges Florovsky, and St. Sophrony, The Cross of Loneliness: The Correspondence of Saint Sophrony and Archpriest Georges Florovsky.


Written by Trey from Telosbound

We recently had a chat with him on our podcast!


---------------------------


Check out Trey and Telosbound over here:



bottom of page