, , ,

The Argument

1.  Philosophy is based on humanistic rationality as a method of inquiry and determination of truth.

2.  Rationally unexplainable phenomena/events essential to life exists (e.g. love, cause of the Big Bang, faith etc)

3.  Philosophy (just like science) cannot fully explain reality.


4.  We must either accept irrationality or redefine rationality or abandon the search for a unified, comprehensive worldview through Philosophy.

To accept irrationality or abandon the search is to accept meaninglessness which renders all thinking and philosophy to a useless mind game.

The only recourse is to redefine rationality as a method of inquirey and a determiner of truth  by

1) eliminating the presupposition against the supernatural (especially in light of the Kalam Cosmological Argument and Big Bang Cosmology).

2) allowing validation in human experience for theories/hypothesis appropriate to that form of validation such as those falling under relational categories.

3) modifying the application of different forms of rationality and knowledge (i.e. reformed epistemology) according to the subject matter studied.

4) allowing for levels of practical probability rather than absolute certainty (which would give new impetus to natural theology and arguments for the existence of God)

This approach allows for a redefinition of Philosophy as a method of inquiry more than as a determiner of truth.  It allows for an amplification of the concept and application of rationality kwithin an alternative/closed system of beliefs founded on presuppositions that are ultimately unverifyable within our present existence or subjectively (albeit “communally”) and partially verifiable and still be considered rational or at least reasonable given certain presuppositions.

This approach, then, would specifically allow for a Christian Philosophy as well as a Philosophy of the Christian Religion that uses the methodology and procedures of rationality to determine the inner consistency and validity of the Christian belief system as a working hypothesis for explaining all (rational and irrational) aspects of human experience.

This approach may reduce the apologetic value of Christianity for those still committed to an autonomous rationality in search of certainty but it would be a much more honest (and modest) approach that would allow for a clearer and rational communication of the Christian worldview while maintaining the “entry fee” of a reasonable (vs. blind) faith that is more “reasonable” precisely because its internal consistencies and historical basis and validation in human experience was expounded first in the apologetic process (i.e. a two step approach in reverse which is really a combined, integrated approach).

I would call this approach Distinctive Apologetics because it does not seek to prove or convince but rather to “differentiate” itself over and against other worldviews and philosophical (and religious) systems of belief.

I believe that this is the present state of affairs in any event among most evangelicals but here I give it my rational justification based on the necessary inability of Philosophy to reach a satisfactory and comprehensive solution bassed on its current method of inquiry and definitions of truth.