BRYANLOPEZ.COM

Presenting Evidence from a Presuppositional Van Tillian Framework.

March 1, 2010 at 4:48 am | Posted in Apologetics, Theistic Philosophy | 2 Comments
Tags: Van Til

My friend Danny found this great article and he writes:

I found this article to be helpful concerning how Christians should present evidence to non-Christians. Often, we are too quick to jump to give evidence without considering more broadly how non-Christians interpret evidence within their worldview.

For example, you may be giving evidence to a non-Christian for the resurrection of Christ, but they will dismiss any evidence because they are a naturalist who refuses to believe in miracles. Or take, for example, the illustration of a man who is convinced that he is dead. The doctors and psychiatrists are doing everything they can to help the man realize that he is not dead. Finally, the doctor asks the man one day, “Do dead men bleed?” The man responds, “No, of course not!” The doctor then proceeds to walk over to the man, pricks the man’s finger with a needle, and a droplet of blood forms on his finger. Now, the doctor is thinking to himself, “Q.E.D.,” but as the man looks down at the droplet of blood on his finger, he responds, “Whadda’ know! I guess dead men do bleed after all!”

So, instead of throwing evidences at them that they will simply dismiss with a waive of the hand, their “philosophy of facts” must first be exposed and addressed.

Li writes,

Van Til is quite insightful in his observation that there is no such thing as “brute” facts, or “facts in themselves.” There are times when one “fact” is viewed by one group of people as a fact while another group rejects the same claim as a fact. At the root of the issue is one’s philosophy of facts which determines what the facts will be. In order for something to be a fact, it must satisfy one’s criteria of what a fact should be. Van Til is correct when he writes:

The battle is not one primarily of this fact or of that fact. The battle is basically with respect to a philosophy of facts. The non-believer virtually makes a universal negative proposition about God every time he engages in his scientific effort. Even when he thinks teleologically in the way that Aristotle did and proves the existence of a God, he is still assuming that God is not and cannot be the Creator and Redeemer of the world.

This truth has implications for the practical question of when to give evidence. In asking the question of when to give evidence, a similar question must also be asked of when it is inappropriate to give evidence. If the nonbeliever’s philosophy of facts is already problematic, then any evidence that the Christian may cite will readily be dismissed by their flawed philosophy of facts. During such an occasion, rather than give evidence, it would be more fruitful for the Christian to first address the nonbeliever’s philosophy of facts.

Read the rest here.