I must admit, as I have before, apologetics— at least as it is commonly done— is really not my thing. I went to college in a Christian school that seemed to really like apologetics, and I got interested in it briefly but lost interest. A lot of apologists I read seemed like people who acted in bad faith. They would make a strong statement (often one I would agree with) and then would throw a single verse that was meant to be “prove” the statement. Often the verse did little to prove anything. Verse-dropping gives comfort to those who already believe (except for people like me, I guess), but less than impressive who don’t.

Presuppositional Apologetics seems to be something quite different. In some ways, it appears to be an improvement. It assumes that any belief system (or, arguably, any belief) has core presuppositions. Rather than arguing the details of the doctrines or practices, argue the values and beliefs that undergird the faith. If one shows that it makes no sense… is irrational, the person will understand that their faith is built on sand not on a firm foundation. Certainly then they will change their mind. Often this form of apologetics also involves a “for argument sake” method of the Christian acting as if the faith perspective of the other is true and then see if it passes the rationality test.

I don’t have problems with the method… except that (1) it seems like a waste of time, and (2) does not really do what it promises. Let me break those down into a few point.

A. People don’t really relate to their own religion that way. The number of people who base their religion or belief perspective on a logical set of non-contradictory propositions has got to be pretty close to zero. Most people choose their faith due to community, morality, or practice.

B. Most major faiths, at least, have a certain level of logical “resilience.” In other words, they have tended to have worked through the major issues. I have studied a number of different religions. In them, I have often found glaring contradictions. In some cases, I know how people in those religions have worked through them. Sometimes they do it in a logical way— while in others they may pull an seemingly unfair wild card out of the deck (“Well… God works in mysterious ways”, for example). In some cases, I have no idea how they work out the contradiction, but I am pretty sure that if I brought it up with someone who was well-grounded in their faith, certainly I would not be shocking them or creating a crisis of faith.

C. Contradictions look more glaring to outsiders, but rarely are seen as problematic to insiders. Goldingay speaks of 4 major types of contradiction— formal, contextual, substantive, and fundamental. Of these, only fundamental should really challenge one’s faith. And yet most people probably would not see a contradiction in their faith as being fundamental. I remember having a Mormon friend of mine try the old chestnut on me, “If God can do all things, can he create a stone too heavy for him to lift.” I am sure for a Mormon, that is a “slam dunk.” But as an insider, the question is so flawed as to be embarrassing. I don’t presume that God can do all things. The Bible says that He is unlimited in power, but that in no way means He can do all things. Additionally, to establish a question based on an inherent self-contradiction is… well, really weak. To say, for example, “Is God so powerful that He can fail to do something due to power” just doesn’t work as a statement. “If God is omnipresent, at all places at all times, is He even where He isn’t.” I am not trying to practice sophistry here. I am just saying, that there are few if any logical traps that a reflective and knowledgeable practitioner of a faith would be stuck by.

D. Christianity is not immune to the arguments of presuppositional apologetics, and is also not particularly hurt by those arguments either. If one sought to embrace a fully logical, rational, faith perspective… what would it look like? Would it look like Christianity? To some people, I think it would. But for others… probably not. Consider a well-known issue— the nature of God. Historical Christianity is Trinitarian Monotheistic— one God, one substance, three persons. Two groups that find this utterly contradictory are Muslims (Unitarian Monotheistic) and Mormons (Tritheistic). Both groups have said that Christianity (historical, that is) is inherently contradictory. Muslims may say that 1 is logical. Mormons may say 3 is logical. Both would, I think, say that 3 in 1 is a contradiction. I would argue against this. There is nothing inherently contradictory to say that God is different from us. There is nothing contradictory to say that one can discern different characters/characteristics within God. I might even argue that if God sought to provide revelation to us, it seems reasonable that in so doing, we learn something about God beyond simply ineffability. As such, Islam to me doesn’t appear particularly logical. I might also argue that the fine-tuning of Universe does not give the appearance of being built by a committee (unlike Mormon’s view of many gods). In the end, however, each of us (Christian, Muslim, Mormon) is likely to go back to our own corners unimpressed by the other views, and undamaged in our own commitment to our respective faiths.

E. Mystery is good. God may know all things, but we aren’t God… or god, as far as that goes. If a person is presented with something that he or she cannot answer… what has one proven? That that person is not God. Not an impressive result. As Christians, we should never be “The Bible Answer Man.” My favorite answer in the seminary classroom is “I don’t know… but here are some thoughts. Don’t argue with someone who thinks they have all of the answers… and don’t be that person who thinks that they have all the answers.

But does this mean that presuppositional apologetics is indeed a waste of time? Not really.

#1. It is important to know merely know what a person believes, says, and does, it is helpful to know the why and where of their faith. There may or may not be value in studying other religions. There is, however, absolute value in studying people… and faith is part of people. If you want to reach someone, try, in part, to understand what they believe— not as a member of some theoretical group, but as an individual.

#2. The act of trying to stand in the shoes of the other person is a good thing. In Presuppositional Apologetics, this is not really done in good faith. And in some ways, I am not suggesting it be done in full good faith. One can, however, bracket one’s beliefs for a moment, to understand empathetically what it means to see the world through another’s eyes.

I think that if one tries honestly to embrace these two aspects of Presuppositional apologetics, one is well on the way to positively impacting the other person.

So, I do NOT think that Presuppositional Apologetics is a really bad thing. There are good aspects of it. Of course, if one does the good aspects correctly, one is in key ways NOT doing this type of apologetics.