Critique of Presuppositional Apologetics

Presuppositional Apologetics argue that presupposing God is necessary. God need to be assumed in the beginning as a starting point in every apologetic discourse without any evidences about that God being presented per se. Van Til as the father of presuppositional apologetic himself said in his book Christian apologetics (2nd ed.) he himself wrote, 

''The Reformed apologist will frankly admit that his own methodology presupposes the truth of Christian theism. Basic to all the doctrines of Christian theism is that of the self-contained God, or, if we wish, that of the ontological Trinity. It is this notion of the ontological Trinity that ultimately controls a truly Christian methodology.''

In other words, what Van Til try to establish is the order of argument in such a way that the fallible human reason is not the ultimate judge of God. The reverse need to be done. Unbelievers and every human way of understanding God need to be judge by God. Thus, there's is a tendency of avoiding and departing from evidential approach. Yet, having said that, by some holders of presuppositional apologetic still appreciate the evidential approach of apologetic and not debunk it all together as meaningless.

From this, we can at least distinguish between those who hold on hard presuppositional apologetic (Any evidence to prove the existence of God is not necessary) and soft presuppositional apologetics (presuppositional method is seen as one among many ways of apologetic that can be combined with the other approach/complementary).

Regardless several variations in presuppositional approach, we can say safely, all are embracing the Reformed epistemology that God as the properly basic presupposition/belief that need not to be proven by human sinful and depraved thought and evidence. Therefore, to put it plain, the best evidence of God is God himself! Nothing more, nothing less.

The most critique of this approach is that this approach commit a logical fallacy, pettito principii. The error is coming about as the result of presenting conclusion already in the premise, and therefore ended in circularity; ‘God exists (presupposition); therefore, God exists (conclusion).

Responding to this case, William Lane Craig says, ''It is difficult to imagine how anyone could with a straight face think to show theism to be true by reasoning, “God exists. Therefore, God exists.” Nor is this said from the standpoint of unbelief. A Christian theist himself will deny that question-begging arguments prove anything.''

It is argued by J.V Fesko that the Presuppositional approach is favor not the correspondence theory of truth. The truth of God stand transcendentally apart from the world surround ad its reality, according to presuppositional method. By this nuance, it will surely hinder any deep dialogue about the content of belief with the larger and diverse audience that demand for correspondence  and common ground (presuppositional apologists often argue about the legitimacy of their method more than the content they believe). 

Apparently, to state "my view is the truth because it must be the truth" can make most people shake their head, shrugged their shoulder and will cut the conversations instantly (The Van Tillians ''magic bullet'' won't destroy the unbeliever argument, more than break the bridge of further dialogue) for usually, skeptical people out there need evidences and ask for some as the most favorite word of them echo, ''where's the evidence?''

By self asserting the truth without any evidences provided will downplay the presentation of truth, also reality of common grace (unbeliever can arrive at some truth of God, through their own field and reasoning).Clifford's Principle ring loudly, “It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone to believe anything on insufficient evidence.”.

Interestingly, when Van Til says that every finite being only being capable of circular reasoning as a defense for critique of circularity he often received, well, by saying that it does not even prove that his presentation of Christian faith with his presuppositional method is preferable than the other view, who claim their own truth with similar circularity (science is true because it is true). In fact, linear thinking that moves from premise to conclusion is a form of thinking that is differs from circular thinking. Linear thinking is not circular as it bring progress and hence, not all thinking is circular thinking like what Van Til claim.

John Frame as the student of Van Til himself who hold on to presuppositional approach of apologetic also admit that Van Til's presuppositional apologetic give the impression that all the arduous labors of past apologists, providing this or that, can now "be bypassed." This is one of the possible consequence we will have, if we argue for presuppositional apologetic as a ''method.'' Especially those who embrace the hard version of it (To affirm the method strongly is to deny the other's significances).

Thus, at best, It is better to set presuppositional apologetics as personal attitude of the heart (Believe that God exists  despite the proofs) while at the same time holding on the different methods to present a sound-rational, and also cumulative case for Christian faith. 

Nonetheless, having present the critique, we cannot deny that the presuppositional apologetic has an important role to play in the history of apologetic, especially to set  the right epistemological order and agenda, God first. The reminder of always glorifying God in apologetic is also precious consequence from this method. Most importantly, the method remind us about our limitation and how sin affect our rationality and human cannot be the sole determiner of truth. 

Despite it commendable positivity, some argue for the advancement and further reformation of  Van Til apologetic. And probably, it can be done through a baby step as Scott Oliphint assert, ''to translate much of what is meant in Van Til writings from their often philosophical and technical contexts to a more basic biblical and theological context.'' Perhaps, it is the endeavor we truly need, better than to offer a mere critique of the method.