Transcendental argument for the existence of God
|
|
Transcendental reasoning is an inference pattern based upon the prerequisite conditions for the possibility of a given fact. All major philosophical systems have employed transcendental arguments.
The transcendental argument for the existence of God (TAG) is an argument for the existence of God which attempts to show that logic, science, ethics, and more generally, every other fact of human experience and knowledge, are preconditioned by the existence of God. That is, one could not make sense of any of them apart from the conditioning belief in the existence God. This argument is commonly used by presuppositional apologists and is considered by some of them (especially those of the Van Tillian variety) to be the only valid method of apologetical argumentation.
TAG is a transcendental argument, meaning that it is proved by demonstrating the impossibility of the contrary. Christian theologian Robert L. Dabney described the logistics of arguing from the "impossibility of the contrary" by stating that "[a] truth is not necessary, because we negatively are not able to conceive the actual existence of the opposite thereof; but a truth is necessary when we positively are able to apprehend that the negation thereof includes an inevitable contradiction. It is not we that cannot see how the opposite comes to be true, but it is that we are able to see that the opposite cannot possibly be true." (Systematic Theology, Banner of Truth Trust, p. 85).
TAG argues that human beings all appeal to logic, science, and ethics in their daily lives no less than in specialized fields of study, and it suggests that the Christian worldview alone provides the necessary preconditions that can account for the facts of human experience and knowledge because the triune God of the Bible, being completely logical, uniform, and good, exhibits his character in the created order and the creatures themselves (especially in man). This reasoning implies that all other worldviews (Atheism, Buddhism, Islam, etc), if carried out to their logical conclusions, must be reduced to either absurdity, arbitrariness or inconsistency.
| Contents |
More details on the argument
The basic form of the Transcendental Argument for the existence of God argument is fairly simple: "If A is the precondition of B, and B (is true/exists), therefore A (is true/exists)". The validity of the first premise ("A is the precondition of B") is usually established by a form of argument known as reductio ad absurdum.
TAG asserts that one's worldview eventually must boil down to a single set of governing presuppositions which are the foundation of all other beliefs. If we believe A, and we believe A because of B, and we believe B because of C, and so forth, eventually we come to a belief that is the foundation of all our other beliefs. For the Christian, the existence of the self-attesting God revealed in the Bible is that fundamental, independent, foundational belief. The only alternative, they argue, to starting our reasoning with God, is to start with self as ultimate (i.e., autonomy) which leads to the problems that are allegedly exposed by TAG.
For example, TAG argues that the moral relativist must secretly rely on the existence of the God to make sense of any moral value-judgment. In this worldview, there is an all-good God whose own character is the basis for the predication of right and wrong to any thought or action. In creation he has equipped man to be a moral being, and in his self-revelation he reveals how man should act, and commands him to do so. Thus, man does have an absolute standard of morality by which to commend or condemn one's thoughts or actions. On the other hand, the relativist cannot commend or condemn any action -- not murder or the opposite, not rape or the opposite, not the holocaust or the opposite, for to do so would be an exposure of his reliance on the notion of absolute morality, and would be based on unacknowledged presuppositions and assumptions about right and wrong which he claims to reject. No moral commendations or condemnations, it is argued, can be accounted for from the relativist's own worldview, instead they are derived from unconsciously "borrowed capital" from Christianity, which the relativist in turn uses even in his arguments against the truth of Christianity.
Common objections and responses
Objection: TAG relies on reasoning which involves the logical fallacy of vicious (and-or premise) circularity. The argument, when it is all boiled down, basically amounts to claiming that the Bible tells you it is from God, and you believe it, because it is from God, and the Bible tells you that it could not be any other way, which you believe, because God said it, ad infinitum.
Response: TAG proponents do not endorse vicous or premise circularity as valid inference patterns. Instead, they posit that worldviews are hierarchical, and hence that one must inevitably reach a foundational belief according to which all other beliefs are weighed, ordered, measured, or otherwise accounted for -- i.e., according to which other beliefs are made intelligible (individually and in relationship to each other). This being the case, they claim that worldview (i.e., transcendental) considerations are supposed to be circular (which they claim is a sign of internal cohesion). Proponents claim that this understanding of the nature of man's thought-patterns does not require the use of fallacious circular reasoning. A proponent of TAG might more correctly restate the example argument from the objection as follows: The Bible must be from God, because if it were not, it would not be possible question the matter, et passim.
Objection: TAG implies that non-Christians have no true knowledge of the world, themselves or God.
Response: TAG proponents do not claim that non-Christians are not logical or moral, or that non-Christians are unable to engage in scientific inquiry or mathematics. Rather, they argue that on a non-Christian worldview there is no theoretical basis that can make sense of these activities and thought-patterns, even though non-Christians (as human beings created in God's image) must be inconsistent with their worldview in actual practice because this is actually God's world.
Objection: TAG denies the validity of utilizing (Christian) Theistic evidence.
Response: TAG asserts that Christianity is, in principle, both self-coherent and consistent with the external world -- i.e. does not lead to absurdity, arbitrariness or inconsistency. It is the responsibility of the proponent of the argument to show that these assertions are true, and part of that demonstration must consist of appeal to empirical evidence. Thus, TAG actually assumes the validity of Christian-Theistic evidence, rather than repudiating them; proponents simply understand those evidence within the context of the entire Christian worldview, rather than regarding them as so many 'neutral' facts outside of it.
Objection: TAG depends on perfect knowledge of an absolute moral system. This requires the assumption of a perfect God, perfect communication from that God to the writers of the Bible in its present form (after deletion of "heretical" writings, translations, etc.), perfect understanding of its meaning by TAG proponents, and perfect transmission of that moral system to less erudite consenting and non-consenting adults.
Response: TAG only depends on the existence of an absolute moral (and logical) system and knowledge of its existence, not on perfect knowledge of the system itself. Just as one may not know exactly how or why each piece of a certain model car operates the way it does, and yet argue that without a certain car factory one could not own such a car, so one may be ignorant or unclear of the precise workings of the system of Christian morality and logic, and yet argue that apart from the existence of the God revealed in the Bible one could not make sense of the facts of human experience and knowledge.
Objection: TAG does not provide a satisfactory account of the source of morality. For instance, we might ask if the torture of innocents wrong because God declares it to be wrong or if God declares it to be wrong because it is wrong objectively? The former is unappealing because it implies God might capriciously declare such torture right and love to be evil; the latter solves nothing, since we would still need to work out what it is that makes such torture wrong in the first place.
Response: TAG says that God is by nature good (cf. Psalm 145.17a; 119.68 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=ps+145.17;119.68)) and that he cannot change this essential quality of his nature (cf. Malachi 3.6 and James 1.17 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=mal+3.6;jas+1.17)). The law of God, which defines morality for man in the Christian worldview, is based in the character of God, not simply an arbitrary decree. The rightness or wrongness of the torture of innocents (or any other moral act, for that matter) is thus based on God's unchanging nature, which is expressed to us in his ordinances. One might then ask, What determines God's nature? God's answer, if we might borrow from a dialog with Moses, is that he is who he is (Exodus 3.14 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+3.14)) -- which is to say, that he is self-existent and self-determined, free of all contingency. Agnostic and atheistic worldviews, TAG proponents would argue, have no basis on which to decide moral questions since moral questions cannot be answered by "the nature of things."
Objection: TAG states that morality cannot exist without God. However, non-Christians can often be more moral than Christians. (Compare Argument from morality#Counterargument.)
Response: If the Christian theistic worldview proposed by TAG is true, non-Christians most certainty can choose a system of morality to follow and live a moral life. The question isn't whether Christians are more moral than non-Christians, the question is whether the Christian theistic worldview and the non-Christian theistic worldview can account for that morality. Both Christians and non-Christians will condemn the Nazi Holocaust or the Spanish Inquisition, and we all make moral judgments throughout our lives. TAG allows for the use of ethics and moral decision making by both Christians and non-Christians. The question is whether moral judgments make sense on the non-Christian worldview. Can that worldview account for morality in a way that does not reduce to absurdity, fall into skepticism, or leave moral judgments subjective? TAG argues that only Christianity can provide the proper foundation for morality that stands up to these challenges.
More information
A number of Apologists have used TAG, including Cornelius Van Til, Greg Bahnsen, John Frame, and Michael Butler. Also see Michael Martin's Transcendental Argument for the Non-existence of God.
External links: sample debates utilizing TAG
- "The Great Debate: Does God Exist?" (http://www.straitgate.com/gbgs.ram) Audio (in RealAudio format) of a formal debate between Christian Greg Bahnsen and skeptic Gordon Stein from the University of California, Irvine.
- The Martin-Frame Debate (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/michael_martin/martin-frame/index.shtml) A written debate between skeptic Michael Martin and Christian John Frame about the transcendental argument for the existence of God.
- The Drange-Wilson Debate (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/drange-wilson/index.shtml) A written debate between skeptic Theodore Drange and Christian Douglas Wilson.
- "Is Non-Christian Thought Futile?" (http://reformed.org/webfiles/antithesis/v2n4/) A written debate between Christian Doug Jones and skeptics Keith Parsons and Michael Martin in Antithesis magazine (vol. 2, no. 4).