Quasi-fideist Presuppositionalism: Cornelius Van Til, Wittgenstein, and Hinge Epistemology

Q2 Arts and Humanities Philosophia Reformata Pub Date : 2023-02-22 DOI:10.1163/23528230-bja10061
N. Smith
{"title":"Quasi-fideist Presuppositionalism: Cornelius Van Til, Wittgenstein, and Hinge Epistemology","authors":"N. Smith","doi":"10.1163/23528230-bja10061","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nI argue that the epistemology underlying Cornelius Van Til’s presuppositional apologetic methodology is quasi-fideist. According to this view, the rationality of religious belief is dependent on absolutely certain ungrounded grounds, called hinges. I further argue that the quasi-fideist epistemology of presuppositional apologetics explains why Van Til’s method is neither fideist nor problematically circular: hinges are rational in the sense that they are partly constitutive of rationality, and all beliefs (not just religious ones) depend on hinges. In addition, it illuminates something of why it may strike one as a misguided or uncompelling apologetic method: instead of starting by tackling the comparatively minor epistemic commitments of the nonbeliever, it directly approaches their deepest and surest commitments.","PeriodicalId":38515,"journal":{"name":"Philosophia Reformata","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Philosophia Reformata","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/23528230-bja10061","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

I argue that the epistemology underlying Cornelius Van Til’s presuppositional apologetic methodology is quasi-fideist. According to this view, the rationality of religious belief is dependent on absolutely certain ungrounded grounds, called hinges. I further argue that the quasi-fideist epistemology of presuppositional apologetics explains why Van Til’s method is neither fideist nor problematically circular: hinges are rational in the sense that they are partly constitutive of rationality, and all beliefs (not just religious ones) depend on hinges. In addition, it illuminates something of why it may strike one as a misguided or uncompelling apologetic method: instead of starting by tackling the comparatively minor epistemic commitments of the nonbeliever, it directly approaches their deepest and surest commitments.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
我认为,科尼利厄斯·凡·泰尔的预设护教方法论的认识论基础是准信仰主义的。根据这种观点,宗教信仰的合理性依赖于绝对某些没有根据的基础,称为铰链。我进一步论证,预设护教学的准信仰主义认识论解释了为什么Van Til的方法既不是信仰主义的,也不是有问题的循环:铰链在某种意义上是理性的,因为它们部分构成了理性,所有信仰(不仅仅是宗教信仰)都依赖于铰链。此外,它还说明了为什么它可能会让人觉得是一种被误导或没有说服力的护教方法:它不是从处理非信徒相对次要的认知承诺开始,而是直接接近他们最深刻和最确定的承诺。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Philosophia Reformata
Philosophia Reformata Arts and Humanities-Religious Studies
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
23
期刊最新文献
Zuidervaart and Dooyeweerd: A Critical Retrieval? A Review Essay of Shattering Silos: Reimagining Knowledge, Politics, and Social Critique by Lambert Zuidervaart Navigating Post modern Theology: Insights from Jean-Luc Marion and Gianni Vattimo’s Philosophy, written by Michael J. McGravey Neurowaves: Brain, Time, and Consciousness, written by Georg Northoff Dancing in the Wild Spaces of Love: A Theopoetics of Gift and Call, Risk and Promise, written by James H. Olthuis Het onbehagen van juf Ank: Over veiligheid en vertrouwen in roerige tijden, written by Ronald van Steden
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1