There is an interesting note in the current issue of Philosophia Christi (v11; n2) by David Reiter about presuppositional apologetics and its famed “transcendental argument for the existence of God” (or TAG for short). This argument claims that there is a deep metaphysical connection between the existence of God and some basic feature of reality. For example, moral laws are connected to the existence of God, and since we know moral laws exist, so does God. The same might be said about logic or the laws of nature. Reiter points to a dilemma TAG faces if it can be agreed that TAG’s form is:
(1) p
(2) Necessarily, if p, then God exists (or G)
So (3) G
In response, Reiter asks what exactly is the argument trying to establish? This may seem strange considering the obvious goal of any presuppositional apologist is to show that God exists, but it remains an open question as to whether God actually exists or necessarily exists. Many presuppositionalists want to make the stronger modal claim that God necessarily exists—that proof of God’s existence is entailed by the impossibility of the contrary.
The problem is that TAG’s form is insufficient to show that G is necessary. If p is not a necessary feature of reality then neither is G. But it is precisely because of their belief that G is necessary presuppositional apologists tout the superiority of TAG to classical arguments. Classical arguments are thought to be weaker, because they simply take a form from nature or reality and turn it into an evidence for God. Such a form goes like this:
(1) p
(2) if p, then G
So (3) G
One thinks of the arguments from design or cosmology when using this form. These arguments have the desired goal of showing that God actually exists, but they do not show that God necessarily exists. TAG it seems is no better and no worse than the classical form since it is insufficient to show G necessarily, though it is sufficient to show G actually.
Perhaps, then, TAG takes a different argumentative form. It may presuppose an Anselmian view of God, which is to say God exists if and only if God is a necessary being. So we have
(1) p
(2) Necessarily, if p, then G
So (3) G
(4) G if and only if necessarily, G
So (5) Necessarily, G
This form is deductively valid and achieves the desired results presuppositional apologetics intends. However, it does not seem to be all that radical considering that it relies on Anselm’s thought and his well known ideas about the ontological argument. Such an argument asserts that once you properly define God—when you properly understand what the name “God” means—then you can demonstrate to yourself that God exists. Yet most presuppositionalists seem to distance themselves from Anselm’s thought.
More importantly, the classical form can be fortified with Anselm’s thought:
(1) p
(2) if p, then G
So (3) G
(4) G if and only if necessarily, G
So (5) Necessarily, G
Thus TAG seems to be superfluous, and the real argument needing more attention is the ontological variety.
May 20th, 2010 | 7:53 pm | #1
While reading this I thought about how I never make an case for God’s existence when I do evangelism. It is always assumed.
I present the gospel and allow God to do the rest. I guess I figured that He could defend His own existence far better than my use of arguments.
May 20th, 2010 | 8:04 pm | #2
That’s a great summary of the arguments put in their formal structure. TAG has definitely been a source of confusion, conflict, and other words that begin with ‘c.’ Presuppositionalism has been a pretty mixed bag throughout its history, but let me try briefly to address the above in the tradition following Van Til that is now re-coined “Covenantal Apologetics” (emphasizing its theological foundation and doing away with the term that has been hijacked by postmodernity).
I haven’t read Reiter’s work, so I’ll just address what is above. What many fail to understand is that when TAG is properly expressed, the transcendental argument is not used as a formal proof that works independent of its content, but as a way to describe Scripture’s claim that God is the personal pre-condition for everything and anything whatsoever – ontologically, epistemologically, ethically, etc. So if in 200 years the formal structure of the transcendental argument is shown beyond a shadow of a doubt to be completely incoherent, that wouldn’t at all affect Scripture’s claim about God. God’s own claims regarding Himself are not dependent on formal, logical structures, although we can certainly use those to communicate biblical truths and principles.
This also applies to the formal structure of “presupposing.” Some think that presuppositionalism inevitably leads to a presupposition-off, or a standstill. In one sense that’s true because of the antithesis between Christianity and atheism, but that doesn’t mean that the formal structure of the argument makes every argument a draw. If the logical form (whether formal, modal, whatever) is seen to be true whether or not God exists, you’ve just assumed a false neutrality and therefore just assumed the non-existence of God before attempting to prove the eventual content of the argument.
So even when discussing logical structures and formal arguments, doing so without recognizing that those structures only exist and have their dependence on God first and foremost will inevitably lead to leaving God out of the picture from the start, an option we know is inherently opposed by that same God.
May 21st, 2010 | 7:24 am | #3
Let me suggest that TAG never won anyone to Christ. It’s an interesting Philosophical discussion, Mike S. is right: the Gospel assumes God’s existence.
If someone does not share that assumption, I think you should work on their acknowledgement of their own sinfulness. The desperation of the sinner will cause him to turn back to God.
May 21st, 2010 | 9:16 am | #4
Adam O: “it remains an open question as to whether God actually exists or necessarily exists.”
What does it mean to say that something is an “open question”?
Frank Turk: “Let me suggest that TAG never won anyone to Christ.”
Do you have any evidence for your suggestion or is it a presupposition of yours?
May 21st, 2010 | 11:07 am | #5
I came to faith sitting on a barstool in my house at 2am. I was minding my own business when “suddenly” I realized that Jesus Christ was the Son of God and I was a wretched sinner. I had read the NT, previously, but the truth of it dawned on me out of the blue, seemingly.
I don’t know what that has to do with apologetics and presuppositions, but that is what happened to me.
May 21st, 2010 | 11:15 am | #6
It should be acknowledged that Van Til never formulated a TAG from premises to conclusion. His followers were left to fill this great gap in his apologetic writings.
“What many fail to understand is that when TAG is properly expressed, the transcendental argument is not used as a formal proof that works independent of its content, but as a way to describe Scripture’s claim that God is the personal pre-condition for everything and anything whatsoever – ontologically, epistemologically, ethically, etc.”
If many fail to understand presuppositionalism, the blame rests mostly with VT and his followers.
Among Van Til’s followers, Greg Bahnsen would disagree with some of the above quotation. He did attempt to employ TAG as a formal proof in his debate with Gordon Stein. He even explicitly denied he was assuming Scripture in order to prove the Scriptures in an exchange with his atheist opponent.
May 21st, 2010 | 11:19 am | #7
TUaD:
I have never met anyone who was converted to Christ by TAG — and I have met a lot of people. TAG does not and cannot convey the Gospel.
That doesn’t mean it’s anti-Gospel. Let’s assume that it’s actually parallel to the Gospel — maybe a decent piece of revelation in Creation. Arguing about that piece of reasoning will never get you to the place where we talk about sin and salvation.
You have to jump tracks to get from there to Gospel.
May 21st, 2010 | 12:41 pm | #8
God has used apologetics, a variety of apologetic approaches, to bring folks to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior.
May 21st, 2010 | 3:01 pm | #9
What distinguishes TAG from Lewis’s argument from reason?
May 21st, 2010 | 3:46 pm | #10
Mr. Turk,
I have to disagree with your last statement. First off, people come to Christ through regeneration which is a monergistic work of the Spirit. VanTil never claimed that his apologetic was some sort of ‘formula’ that will guarantee results. Jesus Christ reveled himself through miracles, prophecy, etc. to Judas but he still did not believe. In other words, you can mount up all the evidence, give the best argument anyone has ever heard of, preach the the best sermon but unless the Spirit is at work no one will not come to faith in Christ. Secondly, Sin and Salvation were essential to VanTil’s Apologetic method. In fact, it was VanTil that realized that sin does not just effect the hearts of men but also their minds (Eph 2:3), and this has huge implications for Apologetics. Correct and Consistent thinking begins in Christ (1Cor. 1:30). You see it is not just our ethical disposition that needs to be renewed, but also our minds. The goal of Apologetics is not to prove that some God out there exists. Jesus himself told the Jews (who believed in a God) that they did not believe (John 5). John make the same point in his 1st epistle vs. 2:23 that no one who denies the Son has the Father. The goal is to defend what is proclaimed, that is salvation. Our whole reason for Apologetics is rooted in 1 Peter 3:15 … and is it to always be prepared to make a defense for the generic God out there? No. It is to always be prepared to make a defense for the Hope that is within you (i.e. Salvation in the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ). Apologetics has everything to do with sin and salvation. Apologetics is a form of evangelism, it is a form of proclaiming the death and resurrection of our Lord and Savior and the radical need for you to be united to him through faith, it is a form of saying that all truth is God’s truth. VanTil taught that you have not fully done Apologetics until you have preached the gospel of Christ crucified and raised. Also, I have met people converted through this method, many of them.
May 21st, 2010 | 5:09 pm | #11
Dear Jonathan,
Excellent comment. Thank you for posting.
May 22nd, 2010 | 7:38 am | #12
“What distinguishes TAG from Lewis’s argument from reason?”
They are actually quite close, except TAG seeks to show that God’s existence is necessary–meaning there is no logically possible world where God does not exist. Lewis’s argument, I believe, is one that intends to show he actually exists.
May 22nd, 2010 | 3:38 pm | #13
Adam,
I don’t think that what is supposed to be distinctive about transcendental argument is going to be identifiable from its logical form — from the inference pattern from premises to conclusion. It is going to be something about the status of the premises with respect to the arguers. The premises are supposed to be self-reinstating in some way — if you deny it, you affirm it, etc. So Kant’s and Hegel’s transcendental arguments were arguments about the conditions of the possibility of experience, which you cannot deny without affirming.
Now, you may not think that this is plausible. But it is a very old idea. Dooyeweerd and Van Til (whether they admit it or not) got the idea from the German idealists (Kant and Hegel particularly) and their British and American followers (Bradley, Bosanquet, Royce, etc.). And the anti-skeptical promise of transcendental argument has proved very attractive to many.
The philosophical issues tied up with transcendental argument are very hard and complex. Dooyeweerd and Van Til jumped on them to solve the problems they saw with traditional apologetics. They thought that TA could avoid the critique they leveled at traditional conceptions of apologetics. I think that their critique of a certain common, traditional kind of apologetics is right on. It is a critique they got from Kuyper and which is present also in Kierkegaard, and its power has not appreciated as much as it should be by contemporary apologists.
I think that CVT and Dooyeweerd (and Hegel) were wrong to think that transcendental argument could solve their problems, though. They overestimated its power, often because of epistemology/ontology confusions (all over the place in CVT). Frame gets much closer with his “broadly circular” argument, and he thinks that is implicit in Van Til already, which is probably right. Van Til seemed to feel the inadequacy of transcendental argument, and that came out in his exchange with Dooyeweerd.
In any case, I think the attention on the form of the argument totally misses what is philosophically important in the discussion over transcendental argument.
May 25th, 2010 | 2:03 am | #14
I have read the article in question and it appears to me as though a traditional argument form is being assumed in the case of TAG in order to argue that it is traditional.
From what I can gather from Reiter’s argument and footnotes he is familiar with the work of Choi and Collett but unfamiliar with Van Til and Bahnsen. Reiter’s comments concerning the Anselmian conception of God were explicitly addressed by both Van Til and Bahnsen, but Reiter appears to be unaware of this by his own admission in a footnote. Thus it is not suprising for me to find, for example, “If p is not a necessary feature of reality then neither is G.” Note how very far this understanding is from that of Greg Bahnsen who would begin his argument with principles and operational features of thought such as the uniformity of nature or the reliability of the senses. Both are contingent.
Jared Oliphint’s comment above is particularly helpful. He wrote, “What many fail to understand is that when TAG is properly expressed, the transcendental argument is not used as a formal proof that works independent of its content, but as a way to describe Scripture’s claim that God is the personal pre-condition for everything and anything whatsoever – ontologically, epistemologically, ethically, etc.”
Roberto G responded, “Among Van Til’s followers, Greg Bahnsen would disagree with some of the above quotation. He did attempt to employ TAG as a formal proof in his debate with Gordon Stein. He even explicitly denied he was assuming Scripture in order to prove the Scriptures in an exchange with his atheist opponent.”
However, Bahnsen’s argument in the Stein debate is less than clearly stated in any traditional sense and Jared’s comment does not exclude the possibility of formally stating TAG but rather explains that there is a problem with divorcing TAG from its content. My way of putting the matter is, “You gotta keep the presup in TAG.”
Bahnsen explicitly denied using the argument Stein attempted to ascribe to him which was clearly question begging, but he most certainly did not deny that the truth of Scripture must be assumed in all of our argumentation including TAG. Bahnsen drew a distinction between question begging arguments and the type of circularity involved in TAG. See Bahnsen’s debate with Sproul for more on this.
We are not arguing from some fact(s) to the necessary existence of God or borrowing from a medieval philosopher’s conception of a god in his own mind but rather presupposing the existence of the God of Scripture who exists necessarily and arguing that unless others do so as well they are unable to render human experience intelligible on their own terms.
Note that the most popular responses to TAG come from Christians and call into question the form of the argument while perhaps inadvertantly diverting attention away from having to provide a comprehensive non-Christian worldview and corresponding epistemology which renders human experience intelligible. Bahnsen was not the type who would let this sort of thing slide. He explained that Van Til would employ the transcendental argument in defense of the transcendental argument and I think we are perfectly justified in doing the same.
Where is Reiter standing in order to raise his concerns about TAG? Whence logic?
May 25th, 2010 | 2:27 am | #15
[...] Omelianchuk has done everyone a great service by summarizing David Reiter’s recent article on the Transcendental Argument for God (TAG) which recently appeared in Philosophia Christi. I left [...]
May 26th, 2010 | 1:04 pm | #16
Presuppositionalist transcendental arguments are just classical arguments in disguise. John Frame has shown this pretty decisively.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact