First let’s get a feel for what Presuppositionalist Apologetics is. The following example is from carm.org:
”Allen: I am an atheist and evolutionist. Prove to me there is a God.Let’s break here, because this is the point where the presuppositionalists go idealist on us. The following exchange almost never occurs with Atheists, and when it does, in my experience, it is usually done dishonestly on the part of the Atheist. A person who is “open” is not an Atheist, he is a seeker.
Paul: I do not think I can do that, because of your presuppositions.
Allen: Why not?
Paul: Because your presuppositions will not allow you to examine without bias the evidence that I present to you for God's existence.
Allen: That is because there is no evidence for God's existence.
Paul: See? There you go. You just confirmed what I was stating.
Allen: How so?
Paul: Your presupposition is that there is no God; therefore, no matter what I might present to you to show His existence, you must interpret it in a manner consistent with your presupposition: namely, that there is no God. If I were to have a video tape of God coming down from heaven, you'd say it was a special effect. If I had a thousand eye-witnesses saying they saw Him, you'd say it was mass-hysteria. If I had Old Testament prophecies fulfilled in the New Testament, you'd say they were forged, dated incorrectly, or not real prophecies. So, I cannot prove anything to you since your presupposition won't allow it. It is limited.
Allen: It is not limited.
Paul: Yes it is. Your presupposition cannot allow you to rightly determine God's existence from evidence -- providing that there were factual proofs of His existence. Don't you see? If I DID have incontrovertible proof, your presupposition would force you to interpret the facts consistently with your presupposition and you would not be able to see the proof.
Allen: I see your point, but I am open to being persuaded, if you can.Where this goes awry is right here: “...I am open”...; this implies that the Atheist will accept logical argumentation, and will examine his own presuppositions using actual rational techniques.
Paul: Then, I must ask you, what kind of evidence would you accept that would prove God's existence? I must see what your presuppositions are and work either with them or against them.
This will not occur. Here’s why:
Atheists do not have presuppositions that are vulnerable to logic. Atheist presuppositions are emotional.
The considerable emotional benefits which a vulnerable person derives from Atheism are virtually impregnable to disciplined, grounded logic. When a person revels in the “freedom” that accompanies the denial of authority, he becomes a virtual king, over whom no one and nothing presides, and that includes not just the rejection of absolute authority but the rejection of all absolutes including the axioms of rational thought.
Thus there is no behavior or thought process which is “irrational” under the ideology of Atheism. For example, the Atheist cannot be proven “wrong” because he will claim not to have taken a position and so cannot be disproved. Or he will claim that there is “no evidence” just after having been handed evidence. Or he will claim no burden of rebuttal because the demand is “irrational” or “absurd” that he provide support for his worldview. No demonstration of the actual fallacies which the Atheist uses will convince him of his erroneous thought process.
Atheism is rebellion; the rejection is an emotional reaction which has positive emotional effects for an emotionally needy individual. Some examples: There is no longer any responsibility to anyone, especially if one is a juvenile, which is when Atheism is usually adopted. There is no longer any moral responsibility; there is no longer any grounded logic or perception of irrationality in one’s behavior or thought about which to be concerned; most of all, there is elitism which is gained merely by association and gained so easily merely by saying “ain’t no god”. And significantly there is victimhood, cherished and nurtured and defining one’s relationship with society. Between the freedom, the elitism and the cherished, defining victimhood, Atheism provides a set of strong emotional props for the fragile ego. Their value is not in their rationality, so any charge of irrationality is without effect. Their value is in their emotional support for an emotionally weak and emotionally demanding existence.
That is why Atheists do not seek logical answers: they seek continuous validation for their emotional demands, and that, for some, involves trying to destroy all challenges so that validation is not jeopardized. Watch the Atheist performance, as he denies all rational approaches and ignores his own fallacies. He merely wants to win, and nothing more. Quite often the argument which starts reasonably will turn into abject reactionary rejectionism and finally into to derogation and ridicule from the Atheist, as he abandons logic in favor of any attack that might preserve his emotional needs.
For that reason, I don’t subscribe to Presuppositionalism, other than to agree that the Atheist presuppositional content is absolutely not rational. But it also is not open in the slightest, and has no use for either logic or rational thinking despite claiming to be the possessor of those traits. Atheists are not truth seekers (for them there is no truth, thus there is no reason to seek it - so they just declare it). They are extreme dogmatists, closed and irrational and emotionally attached to their ideology and fighting to preserve personal validation regardless of the tactic required. So I deal with Atheist presuppositions, but I have no delusions of being able to sway them, as the idealized conversation above shows. I do it because others need to see the irrationality involved in all Atheist thought, and I do it because I can.
