SUNDAY NIGHTS—NEW RADIO PROGRAM on internet

[lee]

Yes, I agree with that approach. i think dialoguing with an individual is far superior than rattling off arguments or preaching at them. communication and sincerity is definitely what i appreciate. and perhaps evidentialist argumentation would be all an individual needs to hear for them to be convinced...maybe even that the Bible just says so. on the other hand, from what i know about presup. and having seen it used, it seems to really take every thought captive to the obedience of Christ. it also seems to be the best way to be in keeping with prov. 26:5, especially when it's a very stubborn or hostile individual.

[CThomas]

Steve, I wanted to follow up on the issue of presuppositionalism, not in any way as a criticism of your debate performance or new show (both of which I enjoyed a lot and was impressed by) but simply as an effort to contribute to the dialogue.

I appreciate and agree with the idea that labels and schools of thought can get in the way of effective presentation of information, and that one should be less concerned with abstract formalistic approaches to apologetic method than in effectively presenting arguments and evidence appropriate to the situation. That said, I think that there is some real value and utility to some ideas that have been called "presuppositional" and that your brief treatment of those ideas is a little bit unfair. Like you, I disclaim any expertise in this area and base this on my own simpleminded and highly limited reading in this area.

The fact is that based on what little I've read, many presuppositionalists get very upset with the idea that their views amount to insisting that their views are true because the Bible says so, which they (rightly, I think) is a caricature of their arguments. To me the central persuppositional idea is what is sometimes called the "transcendental argument" (a poor choice of name, in my opinion), which essentially says, "Look, you have your worldview and I have mine. I'm not going to simply pound the table and insist that my worldview is correct and yours wrong. Rather, let's look at each of our worldviews and see which is self-consistent and which is self-defeating. If you believe in a purely materialistic worldview, where the universe is composed of nothing but matter and energy, then where do abstract universals like laws of logic or expectations of the uniformity of nature come from? No materialist to my knowledge has ever adequately explained that, and many people at least since Hume's treatment of the problem of induction have viewed it as fundamentally impossible. But my worldview (the Christian worldview) naturally can account for these phenomena. So any invocation of logic or evidence in order to support a materialist worldview (and atheists usually pride themselves on being rational and evidence-driven) actually tacitly borrows from my Christian worldview, thus revealing the self-defeating nature of yours." That's a highly simplistic account, and you may or may not agree with it, but it is a far cry from "The Bible says it so you have to believe it." Moreover, even Bahnsen said that evidence-based arguments have a proper role to play in apologetics, but he viewed foundational worldview issues like the one I summarized above as more fundamental to most apologetic situations. I actually think that these sorts of presuppositional arguments can be very effective, and are in no way inconsistent with the sorts of arguments you make in the debate. To the contrary, I see them as mutually reinforcing each other.

In any event, just my two cents on why I think there may be more from us to learn from presuppositionalists. I wonder if the Calivinistic zeal of some presuppositionalists might lead to an overreaction the other way.

Best regards,

CThomas

[CThomas]

P.S. I now see that Lee beat me to the punch on making essentially this point. I apologize for the oversight.

CThomas

[arndtc]

The Road To Find Out Podcast is now live. Its been submitted to iTunes, and should be available there in a few days as well.

The podcast and archive can be found here: http://rtfo.theeggbeater.net/

Direct link to the podcast can be found here: http://rtfo.theeggbeater.net/dircaster.php

Many thanks to Darin for recording the first program.

[Sean]

Thanks! That's just the information I was looking for.

[christopher]

Steve,

Just an minor observation. This last week, it seemed like most of your callers didn't really want to give you a chance to respond to what they asked/said as they kept interrupting your answer and, as a result, there were some things left unanswered. However, I'm thinking most of the listeners (believers or not) would have rather heard your complete response than a choppy dialog due to the annoying interruptions of the caller (mostly begging the question and ad absurdum fallacies).

Is there a way to turn their volume down so you can complete a thought? I know you don't like to do that and it might not be necessary for all callers. But for those that just call to appeal to ridicule, it may be necessary so that at least the other listeners can get the benefit of the response, even if the caller isn't interested in a dialog. Otherwise, it just seems one-sided and the listener is left only with the impression that the caller left.

[steve]

I can turn their volume down or off. I have not yet resorted to that. I like to hear them out, so that I can know what their problems really are, although that gives me less opportunity to respond. I hope I will get a feel for the right balance as time goes on and I have more experience. As it is, I think the show gives much of the impression that I want it to give—namely, that I am not just there to bulldoze with my Christian views, using non-christian callers as mere straight men to give me my springboard. If the program takes on too much of this flavor, I am concerned that it may drive away non-christian callers and listeners. I will take your suggestions into consideration. Perhaps I should do more to limit the caller's opportunity to expostulate. So far, I am getting good responses from the few non-christians who give me feedback.

[darinhouston]

I think it's great, though it's frustrating -- over time, enough truth will get out. I agree with Steve - let them think their shotgun hit and run is effective. It won't be effective for the "right people' who hear, and those people should grow frustrated themselves and call in for reflective discussions.

[steve]

That's exactly how I see it. I have confidence in the discernment of my intended audience. I am seeking to cater to the reasonable types in the audience. The emotional and irrational types (there are plenty of other Christian ministries geared to reach them!) will side with the nonsense spewed out by the irrational callers, and will agree with them that I am a nut. By contrast, reasonable people will easily recognize when the caller is being foolish, and will be forced (even unwillingly) to agree that the Christian position is more reasonable (the fact that I don't smoke weed gives me an unfair advantage over many of the callers).

[christopher]

Those are definitely good points and valid concerns Steve.

It just sometimes gets hard to listen to for linear thinking listeners (like myself*).

*By the way, I'm also lousy at multi-tasking