Presuppositional Apologetics

Recently I was given the opportunity to teach a class at my church about presuppositional apologetics and their bearing on evangelism to non-Christians. I figured since I had already written a substantial amount on the topic, I would also post the additional resource here in a formatted and structured medium for people to reference, and to reach a broader audience. It’s also important to note that the point of this post is not to be the most comprehensive or full-scope dive into the subject, but rather to provide a reasonably easy understanding of the topic for practical use and knowledge. Hopefully it is encouraging to you and provides you both a logical stability and reasoned defense behind the faith.

Firstly, what are “presuppositional apologetics” and why do they matter? Well, to break down the word, presuppositional apologetics is when we dissect the presupposed worldviews at play in an evangelism encounter as a way to defend the faith. This on its surface doesn’t seem like it changes much, but when we get into the logical implications behind this idea, it begins to take form. As Christians, we are entering a conversation with someone who does not believe the same as we do, and who’s worldview is fundamentally different. Ours is one that presupposes God’s existence and hand in the universe, while the Atheist presupposes that there is no God, but rather time and chance acting upon matter. The Atheist supposes that we have come about by random odds and cosmic coincidences which have led us to current day, bereft of any form of divine intervention or higher power. The Atheist and the Christian worldviews are clearly at odds with one another, and cannot both be true at the same time. So, the aim of presuppositional apologetics is clear then; we must begin to point out the flaws in the Atheistic worldview before we are able to bring them onto the solid foundation of scripture and objective truth.

Its important to note that presuppositional apologetics are not a replacement for the gospel, and the presentation of The Word to a nonbeliever. Presuppositional apologetics are a tool to help show the intellectual bankruptcy of an Atheistic perspective and then to juxtapose it with the solid word of God. We should also exercise discernment when thinking about when, and with whom, to use presuppositional apologetics with. If you notice that the person you are talking to is asking questions out of genuine curiosity and desire to know more, this would be a perfect tool to walk them through. However, if the person you are engaging with is hostile, belligerent, or is trying to entrap you with questions, then it is best that this tool is not used at all, but rather to preach the gospel, dust off your sandals, and leave. Presuppositional apologetics are often longwinded and take a lot of intellectual effort to be able to convey to someone else, so don’t waste your own precious time and energy on someone who is there to attack or berate you. We often conflate being a good steward of our resources with “giving up” on non-believers.

A lot of the discussion going forward in pointing out flaws in the Atheistic worldview will involve objective vs. subjective standards, so allow me to define what that means before we proceed in our practice of apologetics. When a standard is subjective, that means it is susceptible to change based on circumstance, or the “subject” at hand. These are standards that differ based on time, person, place or feeling. For instance, I might make the claim that Chinese food is delicious, but that statement does not apply to everyone. There are plenty of people who would disagree with that sentiment, no matter how wrong I may think they are for believing so; yet both of these things can be true at the same time. On the other hand, an objective standard is something that does not change and is considered to be true for everyone regardless of time, person, place, or feeling. For instance, I can make the claim that two plus two will always equal four. This is an objective, mathematical fact that will never change regardless of circumstance. This is what is meant by subjective vs objective truth, and both have their place in day-to-day life, but when it comes to worldview claims we have already established that one must be correct and the other must be false. A claim to a worldview is inherently objective, as only one answer may be true. In other words, I didn’t come to be on earth in a different way than anyone else, so there must only be one answer as to how everything came about. There is no room for subjectivity in this topic, no matter how much someone may try to convince you of it. If you’re familiar with evangelism encounters then you may have heard something like this before: “That’s great that you found religion, but that’s just not for me” or “I’m glad to see you living your truth, but this is mine”. These are attempts to make the topic of worldviews into a subjective conversation where two opposing worldviews don’t have to necessarily compete with eachother. Its likely that the person you’re dealing with just doesn’t like conflict and is attempting to avoid it altogether in order to not start an argument regarding foundational principals or personal convictions. Don’t shy away from reminding them that there can only be one answer to the question about how and why we’re here. Remind them that the conversation is one about seeking truth, and not merely just trying to win an argument or debate.

So, let’s start poking some holes of subjectivity in the Atheistic worldview, shall we? For simplicity’s sake, I will go over three big topics as it relates to worldview and presuppositional apologetics. These three topics will be: morality, uniformity in nature, and logic.

Firstly, let’s start with the topic of morality. Morality is our basis for what is right and what is wrong. Morality is how we govern, legislate, and judge in society to ensure people are behaving in a proper way. Then the question ultimately becomes, how do we know what is “proper”? By what standard can we judge society? In the worldview of an Atheist, morality cannot come from any higher power, as none exists, so where does it come from? Due to the removal of this factor, every answer that an Atheist could give to this question will inevitably be a subjective one. “We get morality from society. Society dictates what is right and what is wrong” is a common response, but this does not hold up to scrutiny. Was Nazi Germany ultimately wrong by this standard then? Or how about slavery? During those times in history, it was socially acceptable to kill Jews, or to enslave other human beings for your own benefit. Surely that means it was a morally good thing, right? Obviously, this is a preposterous idea, and even someone who proclaims to be Atheist will see that this is a foolish standard to live by. Some may still hold to this standard though, claiming that we are "enlightened" as a society today so of course we know those things are wrong now. But this is far too short sighted and narrow of a view, for how are we to know what practices we have today that may become tomorrow's atrocities? Being "enlightened" was the exact same thing that people who were rounding up jews into concentration camps, and selling black men in the marketplace believed about themselves. They thought they knew better. In reality they were trusting in their own established standards of what was right, and what was wrong. Atheists also believe that we are merely cosmic stardust that exploded outward during the big bang and reformed into living organisms. Because of this, they believe we have no express purpose, and that there is no real reason for our existence. If an Atheist were truly logically consistent with this belief, then there would be no such thing as atrocity. A man murdering someone else is merely stardust bumping into stardust. An advanced form of pond scum just cleaning up the pond. There would be no issue with murder, rape, or theft as these are all merely meaningless happenings in a cosmic scale of indifference. Despite all of this, it is inevitable that when conversing with an Atheist, they will point out all of things they have moral issues with in the Bible, or with Christians in general. This is because, deep down, Atheists know that there is a God, and that they were created with purpose. They know, inherently, that human beings have worth, and are worthy of dignity and respect. Romans 1:18-20 confirms to us as much when it says: "The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse". It is clear to them just through how God has made the universe. The law of God is written on their hearts, telling them that it is wrong to kill, steal, destroy, commit adultery, covet, abuse etc. And yet they suppress this truth because instead they love their own sin. They would rather cling to the delusion of godlessness, while still borrowing from the moral foundation of God. It is a helpful tool, that whenever an Atheist makes a moral claim, to ask them "by what standard?" , and to show them when they borrow from the worldview of God.

Secondly, let's talk about uniformity in nature. Uniformity in nature is the idea that the observable universe is structured and ordered in a particular way. Think of a skyscraper for a moment. There is an absurd amount of work that is done when engineering the design for a skyscraper, with all of the physics and trigonometry required to ensure the building is constructed safely. On top of that, there is a crazy amount of hard personal labor that is conducted when actually forming the building to go as high as is needed, and the formation of each individual floor. When we see a skyscraper, there is no doubt in anyone's mind about the time, energy, resource, and minds behind its construction. We know it is ordered in a specific way, by specific people for a specific purpose. There is never any question about "if" there was a builder or not. Of course there was! Nor would you look at a painting and wonder if there were an artist who made it. So why, then, does the Atheist look at our universe, and the creation that is laid out before us, and say "there is no creator"? It seems silly to think that the earth, the trees, the animals, the people, the oceans, the stars, and all of everything else, could just come about through random chance. The Atheist believes that the big bang just made everything. A random cosmic explosion structured everything we know and love now. Tell me, when was the last explosion you saw that created order instead of chaos? It doesn't exist. Explosions don't create structure, quite the opposite. We don't set a bunch of building supplies on top of TNT and just hope the result looks like a building by the end. Yet, the Atheistic worldview presupposes that the big bang has somehow formed the earth and every species of living being on it. This is just one huge problem with the big bang theory, and not to mention 'nothing' cannot create 'everything'. For an Atheist, nothing existed before the big bang. So how can nothing, truly nothing, create everything we know now? How does a big bang even happen from nothing? These are the principals of their worldview that they presuppose without actually thinking of their implications, and we as Christians should be able to point that out.

Lastly, we have the topic of logic. Most Atheists are what we call “natural materialists” meaning they don’t believe in anything immaterial, only products or biproducts of matter. For someone with this belief, the question should become “do you believe in laws of logic?”, those being the law of identity, the law of non-contradiction, and the law of the excluded middle. I won’t go into breaking down each of these laws, as they aren't individually important, but you can research them on your own through a quick and easy google search. Rather, the point is that you’re appealing to something that everyone believes exists but is an immaterial concept. The fact is, without basic laws of logic a conversation between two thinking individuals could not happen, or at the very least it would be a supreme waste of time. Without the ability to logically think through an argument or provide evidences for your point of view, discourse becomes irrelevant as no transfer of knowledge could possibly take place. Of course, no one lives believing that law of logic don’t exist because they aren’t physically tangible, not even the Atheist. In fact, the Atheist will gladly stand in a conversation with you trying to convince you that your perspective is wrong for an extended period of time, using laws of logic to attempt to refute your perspective. Once again, this is an act of borrowing from God’s worldview. If logic and the ability to use deductive reasoning does not come from a higher power as an immaterial concept, then where does it come from? Is it too, like morality, a social construct that is merely dictated by the population of any given society? Then certainly logic would be subjective too, meaning that different societies or people can claim that logic is different for them, and works in an entirely different way. If an Atheist appeals to a subjective standard of logic, a fun response is something like this “I can prove the existence of God to you in a single sentence. Ready? The leaning tower of Pisa is only on Mars every Tuesday at dawn. (or some other absolutely nonsense statement, get creative with it). I assure you that what I just said made subjective logical sense to me, and therefore, you should believe in God now.” By using this kind of satirical remark, we're highlighting the absurdity that something like logic can change subjectively. We’ve been entrained as a society to believe that sarcasm or mockery are too rude of tools to be used in our vocabulary when fighting ideas in today’s culture, but in reality these are some of the most potent weapons in our arsenal to help expose the absurdity of a given worldview that flies in the face of scripture. Use it! And if you want more info on how mockery can be used, check out my other article titled “Sophistry (and the blade of mockery)”. Either way, when faced with the absurdity of their viewpoint, it should become obvious that this is not a position worth holding, but rather there must be such a thing as the immaterial for certain concepts to work for us as people.

Now that we’ve sufficiently poked holes in the subjective Atheistic worldview, let’s review our beliefs as Christians, and how we would handle the answers to the questions that we are posing. It’s important to take note of our foundation before addressing any of the previously mentioned topics. We, as Christians, have received divine revelation through the word of God in scripture. We have the Bible. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 tells us that all scripture is God breathed, meaning that it is inspired by God and that it is his word to us. It is a book and standard that does not change, and by its definition is objective. It is a standard that is true regardless of what culture you’re born into, time period you’re in, or feelings you have about it. We also have many reasons to be confident in the way the Bible was translated through the centuries to know that the Word we have today is accurate in its meaning and intention (though this could be a whole post in and of itself). Scripture is the only standard that provides a logically consistent viewpoint by which to view the world and to conduct one’s life. It is the only thing considered to be “God breathed”, and we should regard the text of scripture as such, as God’s direct word to us. Scripture is our unchanging foundation, and all conversation about why, and what, we believe should be brought back to that standard. With that in mind, let’s begin to address the ideas from before:

Firstly, we have the issue of morality. The Old Testament of the bible is often referred to as the law-word of God, for the purpose of its contents. A large chunk of the Old Testament is God giving his law to the ancient Jewish people as to how he wants them to conduct their lives and set themselves apart from the other nations of the world. This law was divided into 3 different parts, the ceremonial law, the moral law, and the judicial law. The ceremonial law was meant for the express purpose of differentiating Israel from the other nations and acted as a set of spiritual training wheels of sorts. They were laws for the Jews to use to train in righteousness and obedience to God. As they worked to obey God in the small, everyday aspects of their lives, their tolerance for righteousness and obedience grew so that they too would be able to obey God in the greater ways that would be required of them. The ceremonial law included things like dietary and clothing restrictions, which have all been fulfilled by Jesus and are no longer binding on Christians today. The moral law however are the distinctions that God has made between that which is good and that which is evil. These would be things like the Ten Commandments, or other Levitical laws that have moral implications to them like laws on homosexuality or bestiality. These are things still binding on us today, and were meant to be given to all peoples in all times. There are also aspects of Jewish case law found in the judicial law that have moral implications, which are useful in discerning the judgement and character of God in how He perceives justice among men. These are the things that should be appealed to in the conversation about morality, knowing that God has spoken on the things that are right and wrong. He has made it increasingly evident, in plain text, the standards by which we are to live our lives in order to be pleasing to Him. Beyond that, we have also been created with a conscience to know right from wrong instinctually, which is referred to as natural law (See Romans 1:18-20 again), though natural law ultimately fails in the face of sinful man, who will always prioritize his fleshly desires above his conscience. This is why the distinct Law of God has been given to us, so that there would be no excuse or uncertainty. One could also appeal to the affects that following these laws has on the flourishing of human life. Most people have the preconceived notion that Christianity is all about arbitrarily following some kind of dated rulebook, when in reality it is an observable fact that living by the moral principles of God produces a fruitful and healthy life. It’s almost like it was ordered to be that way by some creator…

Speaking of order, lets move on to uniformity in nature. We know through the Genesis account that God created the Heavens and the Earth. Not only this, but God also formed every living creature that inhabited the Earth including cows, and dogs, and lions, and bears, and sheep, and birds, and all other manner of beautiful beings. God also formed humans in the first two people to be created, Adam and Eve. God did all of this and must have intimately crafted every atom and microorganism needed to form these deeply complex structures that we can observe in science today. If you haven’t seen it before, I encourage you to look it up, but people have recently (-ish) found certain forms of bacteria that look like a motor gear in how they’re structured. Many scientists have marveled at how detailed our DNA is as well, and how much information is jam packed into it to be able to facilitate life. We are wonderful machines and creations, not to mention the cosmic scale of God’s hand in how the solar system is laid out. Many usually point out that should our Earth be tilted even a fraction off of its axis from its current point that life would be unsustainable on our planet. There is just a multiplicity of things that point to an intelligent designer behind the way our universe is made. This is easily reconcilable with scripture, not only because we have a creation account of the event, but we are also made aware of the character of God. 1 Corinthians 14:33 tells us that our God is not a God of confusion, and we are constantly shown the character of God throughout the Bible to be one of order and structure. Knowing that God cannot contradict his own character (Numbers 23:19), it only makes sense that his creation is one of order and structure too. We were not created by some indifferent cosmic accident, but rather by an intimate divine presence who knew us before the foundations of the world that he had laid. We have a creation, so surely there must be a create-or.

In that same vein of recognizing God’s character, we have laws of logic. God is immaterial as a being. He is outside of space and time and has no binding in those things like humans do. Because of this, it is perfectly reasonable to assume that because God is immaterial himself, that he is also able to make things that are immaterial. Things like this include immaterial concepts that humans are born with, like laws of logic. No one has to teach you how to think logically, in fact its not really something that can be taught. Rather, the ability to think logically is something that people figure out over time through merely living. We inherently know that it is wrong to lie, or to contradict oneself, (which is one of these laws) and concepts like this come naturally to us as humans because we were made in the image of a logical creator. Our knowledge of an omnipotent creator who is outside of space and time, also solves the problem of the law of infinite regression which is impossible for a natural materialist, or any non-religious person in general. The law of infinite regression is also a logical tool that can be used in an evangelism encounter and can be walked through very simply. First, start by asking the person you’re talking to how they know something is real. Pick something in your environment to help sell the point (i.e if they’re holding a cup, ask how they know the cup is real, or if they’re walking a dog how they know their dog is real, etc.). They’ll probably say something like “well, I can see it” or “I can feel it” to which the question becomes “how do you know your senses are real/accurate/true?”. They’ll probably say “well, I can have them examined by a doctor”, and again the answer is “how do you know his evaluation is real/accurate/true?”. This is a line of questioning that will inevitably go on forever, and is otherwise known as the law of infinite regression. There are only two logically reasonable answers to the law of infinite regression and those would be “I know everything” (which obviously no one does) or “I know someone who knows everything” (which all Christians do!). This again is a great way to bring someone onto the solid foundation that the Christian worldview provides through logical reasoning. Everything else, even the very conversation you’re having, is merely the Atheist borrowing from that very same worldview.

So, with all of that, we’ve finished our overview of presuppositional apologetics. Again, this is meant to be a helpful tool to use to break down the things in a worldview that many non-Christians merely assume in their day to day to be true, without actually thinking about where these assumptions come from. Many people go about their lives, living in God’s world and by God’s principals, but still claiming he doesn’t exist with their lips. So Christian, don’t be afraid to show them the areas in their life where they are stealing from God. Don’t be afraid to poke holes in their worldview, no matter how uncomfortable that may be. Their worldview is a sinking ship already, and some people need to land in the icy water before they realize just how much they need God, and how much they’ve already been borrowing from Him. Make sure in that moment you seize the opportunity to bring them onto the solid rock of scripture and the foundation which will never be shaken.