How to answer the Fool
Here’s a really interesting film about presuppositional apologetics. I’m not a fan, but it made for interesting watching:
Here’s Jimmy Akin explaining the pro’s and con’s of this kind of approach:
…and here’s Dr. Richard Howe doing the same:
Ugh. So many problems with this. He attacks Descartes (while adopting Cartesian methodology). He equates “God exists” with “The Bible is true” (why not Islam or Judaism or . . . ). Also, I’m not impressed with college campus apologetics. These guys were in high school last year. and you’ve had 20 years to think through your stuff. The blank stares are not so much indicative of his brilliance as the ridiculousness of his challenges (“How do you know you exist???” OH BOOOOM!!!!!!!!!).
Yeah, I’m not entirely sure why they think this approach is very effective. I think a more presuppositional approach can be useful when using the Moral Argument, placing the burden on the other person to justify objective right and wrong, but some of the reasoning in the video seemed very circular.
I will say this though: it’s interesting to see a Presup actually DOING apologetics rather than just talking ABOUT apologetics.
LOL!