Origin of Articles

[Angrboda]

I will actually defend him or her here a moment. I'm not certain, but I am inclined to agree that all arguments, ultimately, are circular. This is still a speculative area in epistemology, so nothing is certain. But even accepting circularity in definition of truth, you must have some criterion to separate more desirable explanations from less desirable explanations, and in circular theories of truth, aka coherentism, that measuring stick is consistency, also known as coherence. The problem is not that the presuppositionalist's truths and logic isn't consistent and coherent — it is, or at least it is plausible that it can be made so (though significant reinterpretation of the text may be required). I don't think the problem lies in the presuppositionalist attempting to rest a coherent and consistent system on top of theistic axioms. It's not clear, but it's plausible that the rationalist and materialist is doing the same thing. However, where I think the presuppositionalist errs is in not accounting for ALL the axioms in his system. The axioms in the God part of his or her system aren't all that he is working with, and there are both uncounted axioms, as well as axioms that overlap with secular, humanist axioms: things like, being unfair is wrong, hurting people is bad, or I live in a world of things; these are just toy examples to give the flavor. And just as Euclid generated the world of plane geometry from five axioms, and later geometers discovered other geometries by changing one or more of those axioms, you must be careful of all the axioms you accept, and the worldview that results. A presuppositionalist is like a non-Euclidian geometer who has altered his axioms concerning parallel lines, in order to generate some consistent set of truths, but is still silently using the negated axioms, secretly, when it suits his argument, or clears away a difficulty. The problem is not the circularity of the presuppositionalist's logic, necessarily, nor the chosen axioms, except in the sense that his "choosing" highlights a subset of his axioms, not the whole; I suspect, if they were properly enumerated, the presuppositionalist and the rationalist would find enormous overlap, and, I suspect, only a small fraction of axioms differing. However, when all the axioms of the presuppositionalist are accounted for, I think the result is that her system throws a spanner — because in her turning a blind eye to the rationalist axioms he shares, he has blinded himself to relevant inconsistencies.

Anyway, I should shut up now, seeing as I'd more or less declared I wouldn't speak again. But I'm mouthy, and an epistemologist just can't leave well enough alone. You may disagree with my views on circularity: it's far from a settled issue in the field. The presuppositionalist may deny holding additional axioms, or that they're inconsistent; I'm not going to debate that point, as a credible analysis might take months or years, so I'll simply grant the presuppositionalist his faith in his system, while being skeptical of it myself. I don't think either issue can be settled here. Atheists and anti-theists have greeted presuppositionalism with annoyance and chagrin. I confess to finding the polemic grating and frustrating (and I suspect there are better defenders of the position than this person, though he or she does keep you going). Will presuppositionalism "shake down" properly, and reveal a robust defense? I don't know. I strongly doubt it, but then presuppositionalism is highly reminiscent of ontological arguments for the existence of God, such as Anselm's; skeptics know there's something wrong with the argument, but it's another thing to try and put your finger on just what that wrong thing in fact is. (And also reminiscent, ontological arguments don't change minds; skeptics remain skeptic, and believers become even more ardent believers.) And we're still debating Anselm, centuries later.

Anyway, my two cents worth. I'll try to stay out of the way, but I'm not promising anything. Keeping my mouth shut is not a skill that I have completely mastered.