Have you found yourself unwittingly conned into learning Presuppositional Apologetics yet unable to argue against your Gangadeanian professor / instructor ( Dr. Owen Anderson, Kelly Fitzsimmons Burton, Ben Dickerson, Greg Goodrich, Arturo Gastelum, and Keith Makedonsky)? Well, I have just the thing for you - Iron ChariotsRefute Ontological arguments
Refute Cosmological arguments
RefuteTeleological arguments
RefuteTranscendental arguments (TAG)
Refute 'Natural-law' arguments
Refute Moral arguments
Refute arguments from Consciousness
Refute Uncaused cause arguments
Refute the argument from Sensus Divinitatis (the 'properly basic' nonsense)
TBS YouTube Channel
Judges 1:19 And the LORD was with Judah; and he drove out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.
Wow - getting loads of traffic on this post. Fantastic!
ReplyDeleteFor clarity's sake, the WF group does not make the traditional presuppositional argument. Were one to read Gangadean's book it'd be fairly clear that he (attempts, fairly thoroughly) refutes traditional presuppositional apologetics.
ReplyDeletePresuppositional apologetics assumes that in order to reason you must begin from a belief in the Christian God essentially. Gangadean proposes instead the idea that you can know that God exists from a combination of self-evident truths and basic observation of the universe.
This is not to say that I find his arguments to be that compelling, just to say that it's vastly different from the traditional presuppositional apologetics.
If you haven't read Philosophical Foundation closely I suggest you do so. It should be challenged on its own merits and not by lumping it in with traditional positions (although it does recycle a lot of ideas, understandably so).
Thanks for the comment. There is no difference between traditional Presuppositional Apologetics and Gangadean's 'Rational Presuppositionalism'. No matter how you spin it, RP is still based on the presupposition (basal assumption or axiom) that Yahweh is the basis for rational thought.
ReplyDeleteThank you, Anonymous, for conceding the connection between Gangadean's material and Westmister Fellowship (WF); that's a great first step for you guys. I also appreciate that you've recognized that Gangadean's "philosophy" is, in fact, apologetics. :)
ReplyDeleteNo spin. The arguments are completely different. You clearly haven't read the book closely enough.
ReplyDeleteIt does get around to saying that a world not created by God is not logically possible, but that's a far cry from saying that rational thought depends on God.
The central theme of the book is that all people (barring special cases) are capable of using reason to know certain things, and from those certain things which are self-evident we can know that God exists. The principle of clarity.
The tradition of Christian presuppositionalism presupposes the truth of scripture and is quite different. The big thing they were trying to get around is that proving God's existence does not prove the truth of the scriptures--which scriptures?
Personally, I find the proofs in PF to be incomplete and require a lot of handwaiving, but the claim made is quite different and does not presuppose God's existence.
I'm not a member of WF. And I suppose none of this really matters since you're not arguing against the truth of the argument as much as you are against the methods used to advance it.
But it's been bothering me for a while as I've followed your site that you continually misrepresent what WF claims. It'd help your cause more to stick to the methods argument unless you're willing to dig down into the philosophy and understand it.
I am not a member of WF.
If god was good, how could it be so callus as to create evil. It is simple: Good would not create evil as a test. Good would not create free will if it was truly infinite as it would know the result: Evil.
DeletePresupposition: Only the devil, evil, can create good. Otherwise there would be no evil! Therefore, the devil must be the creator. (so much for presuppositional thinking)
"For after all what is man in nature? A nothing in relation to infinity, all in relation to nothing, a central point between nothing and all and infinitely far from understanding either. The ends of things and their beginnings are impregnably concealed from him in an impenetrable secret. He is equally incapable of seeing the nothingness out of which he was drawn and the infinite in which he is engulfed."
Blaise Pascal, Pensées #72
As far as I can tell from reading the book (specifically chapter 3.3) rational presuppositionalism presupposes the laws of thought (reason in the laws of identity, non-contradition, excluded middle, etc.) as being true, and the only reliable method of testing beliefs.
ReplyDeleteIt lays the belief in God out there as a belief that must be tested like any other.
"I've followed your site that you continually misrepresent what WF claims."
ReplyDeleteI have absolutely no intention of misrepresenting WF (Westminster Fellowship)or Gangadean's material.
Do you agree that Gangadean's material is apologetics and not philosophy?
"I am not a member of WF".
That wouldn't be the first time I've heard an adherent of WF claim to be unaffiliated with the organization, forgive my skepticism.
Are you a student attending WF? Are you the pastor? Ultimately, it doesn't matter, however, your abbreviation (WF) and your concern for the 'misrepresentation' of the material leads me to believe that you are being dishonest about your affiliation with WF.
Okay, here's the deal. Keep in mind that I've read enough of Philosophical Foundation to know exactly how the argumentation works, I've taken PHI 101 *Gangadeanian style*, I've known my fair share of Westminster Fellowshippers.
ReplyDeleteThe very first line of argumentation in 'Rational Presuppositionalism' is to ask the 'material monist' to account for reason 'because matter cannot account for reason'. How is that not T.A.G.?
~"Apologetics or philosophy"?
ReplyDeleteIf you've read the book you'd know it's a mix of both. And what I'd call it is a philosophical approach to apologetics. The book, and the WFers, claim (and in practice attempt) to use classical logic to interpret reality, which is definitely in the province of philosophy.
The book begins with and contains a fairly decent high level overview of logic and all that.
It's not a full treatment, and the book breaks down and ceases giving very coherent proofs or analyzing the premises of its arguments closely enough.
It doesn't really matter for my comments at all though.
~"Not wf"
I'm a former member. Long story.
~"Familiar with PF"
If you've followed much philosophy outside of WF, most 'material monist' philosophers are very concerned with explaining things like consciousness and origins. This is because those things are the chief area of attack on materialist philosophies.
The book doesn't go into enough discussion of modern philosophies instead boiling them down to simple arguments. But it does attempt to give a treatment of various positions and build a philosophy.
Theism is in fact a philosophical position. Do I think it's one that a philosophical textbook for a 101 class should be taking? Not really.
But my take on the book is that it attempts to start from reason and prove Theism. That's philosophy, whether it's good philosophy or not.
The last half of the book is a little dubious, where it pretty much assumes that we agree that if there is a God, these are his attributes, and fails to establish how the Moral Law follows from the stock position of Theism and what we can observe and reason.
TL;DR: The transcendental argument is not the same as saying that materialism must account for reason. Spiritual monists would say the same thing, as would any dualist philosophy.
Maybe a further clarification:
ReplyDeleteChristian Presuppositionalism starts assuming the scriptures and reasons from there.
Rational presuppositionalism starts assuming reason is universal and attempts to prove that God exists, the (Christian) scriptures are true, etc. As part of that they try to use reason (alone) to refute all the other potential positions but Theism as a method of argument. Pretty standard philosophy.
Big difference. You can argue about whether they accomplish that end, but they're clearly starting from a different point or trying to.
Let me ask this question. Should atheism be advocated by a Philosophy 101 philosoper or textbook? Because I can give a couple of examples of texts that are very explicit about defending atheism. The Cornman and Lehrer book from years ago did this, as did Michael Scriven's Primary Philosophy.
ReplyDeleteDo you think this guy has a case?
I am not just arguing, I really do want to know what your position is. For every Gangadean there are about 10 professors who openly advocate atheism in class. If you say this is unconstitutional teaching, then what about them?
http://www.ocregister.com/news/lawsuit-163917-corbett-case.html#
One point Victor is to offer students alternatives and for them to think through as to what they believe and why they believe it. I want to learn about the alternatives and I do not want to pay my tax dollars to support one myopic viewpoint. I want to learn about satanic "ethics" to Socrates. Maybe something is infinite, eternal & unchangable, however, there are those that believe in faries; so clap your hands. As for atheism, atheists can be ethical and if a teacher taught only "atheisim", I would be just as concerned. The main issue Victor: Read the Constitution. Gangadean does not teach what the syllabus which to me is a violates his own "moral laws": see page 200, 4.6.
DeleteI am 100% for Gangadean to "advocate" a position. I am 100% for teaching comparative religion. I am 100% against teaching either atheism or thesim ....without giving equal time to several alternative viewpoints in a public education enviornment supported with tax dollars..
DeleteYou may believe "atheism" is a religion. That's fine with me. I believe Gangadean's conclusions are invariably(what he calls clear, comphrehensive & critical)
abhorrent. I never heard an atheist tell someone that their beliefs in a no diety are a "matter of life and death".
Victor, your question is a red herring which is why I did not respond earlier.
DeleteAdvocating anything in a philosophy 101 class is immediately suspect in my book, whoever is doing it.
ReplyDeleteNot to say that some things aren't universally true, but one should be very careful in advocating positions when students haven't been grounded in the basics of the major points of philosophy and the history of philosophy.
very fair. I reccommend you search for Sandy Kagan's lectures (free on line) at Yale University. He offers several alternatives for each issue and as long as a student can support their position, their answer is correct. Dr. Kagan, at the end of each lecture, will invariably tell his students which position he believes in and will readily admit that his opinion is not necessarily the "correct" answer.
DeleteKagan is great
DeleteI would love to correspond through e-mail. miller.andie@gmail.com
ReplyDeleteAndie, I've sent you an email from my private account.
DeleteDr. Owen Anderson's wife has left him, and they are currently going through a divorce. Dr. Anderson's wife Sheri Anderson, is accusing both her husband Dr. Anderson, and Surrendra Gangadean of "brainwashing" her as well as their children. She has accused her husband, Dr. Anderson of abuse within their marriage and home and of being a controlling sociopath. When such things happen in our church, perceived offenders, in this case Sheri Anderson, are cut off from their friends and other families within the church by shunning and excommunication. Since maintaining friendships outside Westminster Fellowship can be difficult due to differing beliefs, as well as the secretiveness of our church, the use of shunning and excommunication is usually extremely devastating on the lives of those it's imposed upon.
ReplyDeleteAs a side note, since Dr. Anderson's divorce will be made public record, it might be wise to make some of his wife's testimony available online as a way of warning people of the cult like nature of this particular group of people.
I have written this because I believe that people have the right to know who and what they're dealing with when interacting with this group of people.
"As a side note, since Dr. Anderson's divorce will be made public record, it might be wise to make some of his wife's testimony available online as a way of warning people of the cult like nature of this particular group of people."
DeleteIf Mrs. Anderson is comfortable sharing her story publicly on this forum I would be happy to accommodate her with a blog entry of her own, as long as it directly relates to her experience with WF. I can be contacted at (623) 236-9580 for details.
Kelly Fitzsimmons Burton, Arturo Gastelum and Mr. Kyle Navarrette have all been members of Westminster Fellowship, Surrendra Gangadean’s church, for over a decade. Currently, all 3 of them teach at Paradise Valley Christian Preparatory on Cactus Rd in Phoenix.
ReplyDeleteBrandon Crowe and Benjamin Dickerson have been members of Westminster Fellowship for over a decade as well. Currently, they both teach at Veritas Preparatory Academy in Phoenix.
The following is an excerpt of the online public records of Dr. Owen Anderson’s divorce, which may be seen by following this link, clicking on “Case History”, and then searching for Owen Anderson. http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/docket/FamilyCourtCases/caseInfo.asp?caseNumber=FC2012-009175
In this excerpt, Dr. Anderson's wife is filing emergency orders to prevent her children from attending Surrendra Gangadean's church, Westminster Fellowship.
NOTE: TO MOTION FOR EMERGENCY TEMPORARY ORDERS WITHOUT NOTICE TO PREVENT MARITAL CHILDREN FORM ATTENDING WESTMINSTER FELLOWSHIP
12/27/2012 AFS - Affidavit Of Service 1/10/2013
NOTE: SERVED 12/18/2012
12/27/2012 REQ - Request 1/2/2013
NOTE: FOR RESOLUTION MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
12/21/2012 ORA - Order To Appear 12/28/2012
NOTE: FOR RETURN HEARING ON MOTION FOR TEMPORARY ORDERS TO PREVENT WESTMINISTER FELLOWSHIP
12/20/2012 ANS - Answer 12/26/2012
12/20/2012 PTO - PETITION/MOTION FOR TEMPORARY ORDERS 12/28/2012
NOTE: EMERGENCY / WITHOUT NOTICE TO PREVENT MARITAL CHILDREN FROM ATTENDING WESTMINSTER FELLOWSHIP
Might it be possible to add the "Puritan Board" to the tags for these comments?
ReplyDelete