1 / 18

No-excuse intuitionism

No-excuse intuitionism. A fresh approach to apologetics. Introduction: how I was converted. Love, care and the gospel brought me to Christ. What is the question of apologetic method?. Bertrand Russell’s China Teapot quote. Categorizations of apologetic methods.

petula
Download Presentation

No-excuse intuitionism

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. No-excuse intuitionism A fresh approach to apologetics

  2. Introduction: how I was converted Love, care and the gospel brought me to Christ

  3. What is the question of apologetic method? Bertrand Russell’s China Teapot quote

  4. Categorizations of apologetic methods 1. Categorized by the method of argumentation Classical, Evidential, Presuppositionalism, Reformed Epistemology, No apologetics. See Cowan ‘Five Views on Apologetics’

  5. Categorizations of apologetic methods 2. Categorized by the mode of knowing: Faith and Reason Natural theology, Faith seeking understanding, Incompatibility of faith and reason. See the introduction to Paul Helm, ‘Faith and Reason’

  6. Categorizations of apologetic methods 3. Categorized by the mode of knowing: Evidentialism or Presuppositionalism A continuum between the two?

  7. No-excuse intuitionism outlined: which truths should be presupposed? The truths which should be presupposed are those moral truths which we need to know in order to live a blameless life. The truths which should be argued for are the other truths of the Bible, inasmuch as they can be argued for.

  8. No-excuse intuitionism outlined: What is it to presuppose? If a truth should be presupposed, we should not argue for it in such a way that we expect someone who is persuaded by our arguments to be persuaded with that argument as the ground of their new belief

  9. No-excuse intuitionism outlined: What is it to presuppose? If a truth should be presupposed, it is still right to argue for the consistency of that truth with the world we live in. Such an argument could be described as ‘faith seeking understanding’ or ‘negative apologetics’.

  10. No-excuse intuitionism outlined: what truths should be argued for? All other truths of the Bible, especially those central to the gospel

  11. No-excuse intuitionism defended: no-excuse intuitionism derives from the concept of no-excuse We are without excuse for our moral failings. This implies all people ought to know the moral truths they need to know to avoid moral failings. This implies that each such moral truth is able to be known in simple fashion. This implies that each such moral truth is knowable through intuitions. Hence no-excuse intuitionism.

  12. No-excuse intuitionism defended: romans 1 says we are without excuse for our moral failures Romans 1:18, 21, 23, 24, 26, 28

  13. No-excuse intuitionism defended: romans 1 implies a generic ethical intuitionism Robert Audi (‘The Good in the Right’) defines ‘Intuitionism as an ethical theory to be, in outline and in a minimal version, the view that there is at least one moral principle that is non-inferentially and intuitively knowable’. He defines ‘generic intuitionism’ as the ‘stronger view, on which there is a group of at least several such moral principles’.

  14. No-excuse intuitionism defended: when these moral truths are argued for, the doctrine of no-excuse is undermined If the apologist’s argument is successful, the person’s newfound moral belief will rest on that argument. But in that case it will be logical for the person to say that others have an excuse for not believing that moral truth – the excuse that they never heard the argument which persuaded them of that moral truth.

  15. No-excuse intuitionism defended: when these moral laws are argued for, ethical consequentialism is implied But the ends does not justify the means

  16. No-excuse intuitionism defended: evidence for gospel claims should be provided to unbelievers The noble Bereans of Acts 17:11-12 were right not to immediately believe the historical elements of Paul’s claims, but to test them.

  17. No-excuse intuitionism defended: evidence for gospel claims should be provided to unbelievers The noble Bereans of Acts 17:11-12 were right not to immediately believe the historical elements of Paul’s claims, but to test them. Unbelievers ought to consider the evidence for the gospel’s claims before believing it.

  18. Critique of apologetic categorizations according to method of knowing Method of argumentation is the best way of categorizing apologetic methods, as the truth no-excuse intuitionism implies

More Related