Presuppositional arguments for the existence of God hinge on the ability to attribute meaninglessness to all non-Christian world views. Here I will not attempt to find meaning for the atheist, rather I will explain why I think the Christian has the same problem with meaninglessness. Then I will assert that in the absence of tangible objective meaning, people continue, nevertheless, to seek happiness and fulfilment, part of which entails developing and trying to live by a personal moral or ethical standard. Given that morals and ethics primarily concern behavior between people (and between people and other living things), I will show that ethics and morality are personal realities that intersect in consensual reality and that discussions and politics concerning these issues are relevant to the human condition and transcend individual world views.
The foundation I intend to use here which puts Christian and non- Christian ethics and morality on an even playing field would be the same I would use when discussing Christian and non-Christian logic, science, music, or whatever.
I'd like to get some Christian responses to these ideas. Ever since that first "TAG" message I've been trying to find out exactly what its main ideas are. After searching around I found a good repository of comments from apparently well known Christians. I have included quotes after my part of this message so you can see where my concepts of presupposition and trancendental arguments for God came from.
I don't see TAG as any more viable in explaning reality than other philosophies. The tenets of the Transcendental Argument for the existence of God are as follows:
1) When reflecting on the existence of God, a person's presuppositions affect the conclusions reached.
2) Only the presupposition of the existence of the Christian God as described in the Bible can provide a framework for reaching any meaningful conclusions.
3) Reality can be accurately described within the Christian presuppositionalist's world view and not by any other.
4) If the Biblical triune God does not exist, then all thoughts and feelings are the result of mechanistic or other processes. The result of this is that there is no reason to believe anything as true, because all experience, thought and feeling is dictated by mindless molecules and not subject to or the result of any objective truth. Epistomelogical autonomy is therefore self invalidating.
5) Truth is only valid as communicated to man by God.
6) God rules sovereignly, from the extreme idea that all things are animated by God (including the decrees of Kings and celestial motion) to the lesser view that God hardens or softens hearts as He will, to the even weaker idea that at most, God telepathically communicates to humans.
Okay, that's my take on TAG. Here's my refutation.
1) Christians trust in their subjective, personal ability to judge what is true. If a Christian is asked "Do you trust that you have made the correct decision concerning Christ?" the answer will likely be "yes." (There is another response - that God made
the decision and not the person which I address next). While
a Christian will say that they trust only in God, it is in their
own ability to make the correct decision that they trust. If they
doubt this they doubt the very foundation of their faith.
2) God's sovereignty or influence over the subjective internal
experience of man, the strong case and the weak.
a) Strong - in this case all thoughts and feelings a person
experiences are given by God. If you think murder is wrong
it is because God is making you think that, for example.
In this case, then, there is no reason to believe that
any ideas or feelings reflect any sort of objective or
Godlike truth, rather a person is given to think only
whatever is projected into their mind by a capable being.
If this is true, God puts it into the minds of some to
believe the Bible is true, and in others the belief that
it is false. What a person believes in this regard is
not a reflection of whether or not Jesus existed and rose
from the dead, for instance, but is a reflection of what
God put in a person's head to believe. If God tells you
He cannot lie and you believe it - you believe it because
God makes you believe it, not because it is true.
(It may be true that God doesn't lie, but that's beside
the point for a person who's belief's are based on
internal subjective experiences which come unbidden.)
b) Weak - the idea that people have considerable mental autonomy, but that when one "hears the Word of God preached they are convicted of the truth." Again, this
conviction or feeling that something is true is
directly attributable to it's introduction into the mind
by a capable being. There is no basis for believing such
internal convictions and experiences any more so than
a person who's thoughts are mechanistically induced
should believe them to be true. Anothe way of looking at the "conviction of the Holy Spirit" might be that
inside each person is a non-physical spirit. This
spirit is so created (designed) that when the ears hear
about Jesus, the spirit reacts by sending an affirming
signal to the mind. In this case the belief is based on
the intentional design of a person, but doesn't necessarily
reflect truth or reality.
3) It is possible that some presuppositionalists who endorse
the transcendental argument may not believe that God can
communicate directly to the mind or conscience of man.
That leaves us with all the same tools available that
the atheist has to find objective truth, mainly sensory input
and reason. The difference, however, might be that if we
presuppose God's existence, then we can attribute to God
the creation of a reality where reason is valid. If, however,
we presuppose the non-existence of God, then we can not
find a good argument for the validity of reason.
This argument has nothing to do with truth, meaning, or reality,
but has to do with what we would like. We would like to
perceive meaning and significance in our existence. Using
our minds we can come up with a scenario where within the
domain of our existence there is meaning, albeit one
not intrinsic to existence but inherited from God's intent.
That we can come up with such a concept does not make it
true. If there is no meaning to life, then that's the way
it is. What is the meaning of Saturn? what is the meaning
of a black hole? If humans did not exist, what would be the meaning of matter? The inability to identify a "meaning"
or purpose of an object or a person does not make that
object or person not exist.
Conclusion:
We exist whether or not we know the reason (if there is one) why. Many of us share common attributes, among them the desire to avoid pain, and something we call a conscience which often has to do with how our behavior affects the experiences of others. If an individual does not share this attribute, then when it comes to morals or ethics, we have no common ground, nothing to discuss. If however, most people do share this attribute I call a conscience, then it makes sense for people do discover their areas of consensus. (As an aside, this is one reason why democracy makes sense for a political system.) We can quibble about the exact definition of conscience; we can argue for and against the existence of relative or absolute right and wrong, We can disagree about the source of our impulses and desires, but the bottom line is that regardless of one's world-view we each inhabit a world full of other people and in this world most of us develop a personal system of logic, ethics and thought. Because a Christian asserts that non-Christian thinking is self invalidating, or because an atheist asserts that Islamic thinking is self invalidating does not make it so. The validity of a person's world view might be measured by how happy the person is who holds it, or by how much good a person with such a world view does for humanity as a whole, or it may be measured against one's own concepts of value and worth and it may be measured against another person's version of truth and reality. One thing I can say, is that a Christian's assertion that my world view is meaningless and invalid does not bring me into agreement with it, transcendental and presuppositional arguments notwithstanding.
Jim Grunwald
The following are small quoted sections regarding presuppositionalism with author and source attributes before each section. I don't think I'm violating any copyrights here as I'm quoting very small portions of larger texts for the purpose of discussion. The complete texts can be reached from: http://www.reformed.org/apologetics/apologetics.html
================================================================= An Apology for my Theology: The inseparable link between Reformed Theology and Presuppositional Apologetics By Bryan Neal Baird
So then, we can testify to and argue Reformed theology, but we can do absolutely nothing to win the non-believer over to our position. [. . .] Nothing the non- believer does on his own will bring him to God; only when God changes his heart will the non-believer accept the bases of our arguments. Concomitant with this are a host of other interrelated tenets of Reformed theology. We have the promise that God's grace is irresistible; His purposes will be accomplished in both the individual and society. Because God is sovereign and all things depend on Him rather than on man [. . .]
The presuppositional method refuses to allow the non-believer to be comfortable by reasoning from his "mind set on the flesh." In keeping with Scripture, this method recognizes that the non-believer's very reasoning about God is faulty and challenges him from that point.[. . .]
==================================================================== Jones: The Futility of Non Christian Thought
Biblical Christianity, properly defined in terms of classical Protestantism, offers a radical philosophical critique of non-Christian thought. This Christian critique is radical in the sense that it challenges the very core of non-Christian pretensions and demonstrates that non-Christian thought, whether atheistic, agnostic, or religious, ultimately destroys rationality, science, ethics, and every other aspect of human experience.
[. . .]A properly Biblical critique will not only demonstrate the utter futility of non-Christian thought, it will positively demonstrate that the Christian view of reality is intellectually inescapable. As Cornelius Van Til has argued, "Christianity can be shown to be, not `just as good as' or even `better than' the non-Christian position, but the only position that does not make nonsense of human experience."[. . .]
Sketch of the Christian Critique of Non-Christian Thought
[. . .]The Biblical outlook rejects non-Christian claims to knowledge as "knowledge falsely so-called" (I Tim. 6:20) and "vain deceit" (Col. 2:8), since such claims are allegedly justified autonomously rather than by the standard of God's knowledge (Prov. 1:7; Rom. 1: 18-25; Col. 2:8).[. . .]
Epistemological autonomy is the view that the human mind is the final criterion of knowledge. [. . .]Nevertheless, the result of this attempt to be epistemologically independent of the Christian God is epistemological futility. [. . .]
(A) Those thinkers who maintain that the human mind is competent to serve as its own criterion of truth ultimately encounter their own finitude; their particular rational scheme cannot account for everything since the autonomous theorist does not have God's abilities. Instead of the proposed exhaustive scheme of reality, the non-Christian will either deny or ignore whatever doesn't fit his rational scheme, thus compromising the proposed scheme[. . .]
The Inescapability of Christianity
In brief, Biblical Christianity avoids the futilities of non-Christian philosophies by rejecting epistemological autonomy. In contrast to a futile epistemological competence, the Christian acknowledges that the universe is fully knowable to the Christian God and to us as far as He reveals his knowledge to us. Hence, Christian philosophy does not destroy knowledge by means of the self-vitiating finite criteria or impotent knowledge claims. Moreover, in contrast to a futile epistemological incompetence, the Christian acknowledges that the human mind must look to the objective standard of God and His revelation, thus not falling prey to subjectivistic dilemmas which vex non-Christian thought.
Hence, instead of hopelessly attempting to determine truth by means of finite products of chance, a Christian view of reality acknowledges the Christian God as the inescapable precondition of all thought. Thus we offer a transcendental argument to establish the truth of Christianity: If the Christian view of reality is not true, then knowledge is impossible. Only the Christian view of reality provides the conditions necessary for logic, induction, scientific progress, ethics, history, and the arts. ==================================================================== Disputatio
Justifying Non-Christian Objections Douglas Wilson & Farrell Till
[ I have only included parts of DW's comments, trying to extract
the fundamentals of presuppositional/transcendant argument for
the existence of God, and have not included FT's comments ]
[. . .] In the following interchange, the editor of Credenda/Agenda, Douglas Wilson and Farrell Till, editor of The Skeptical Review , discuss the topic of justifying non-Christian standards of ethics and reason.
DW:[. . .] without God there are no ethical objections to anything.
DW: Fine, I'll bite. If there is no God, then all the things you mention are in the same meaningless category. Morality, tragedy, and sorrow are equally evanescent. They are all empty sensations created by the chemical reactions of the brain, in turn created by too much pizza the night before. If there is no God, then all abstractions are chemical epiphenomena, like swamp gas over fetid water. This means that we have no reason for assigning truth and falsity to the chemical fizz we call reasoning or right and wrong to the irrational reaction we call morality. If no God, mankind is a set of bi-pedal carbon units of mostly water. And nothing else.
DW: Since you insist, I'm glad to repeat my argument. If there is no God , then all that exists is time and chance acting on matter. If this is true then the difference between your thoughts and mine correspond to the difference between shaking up a bottle of Mountain Dew and a bottle of Dr. Pepper. You simply fizz atheistically and I fizz theistically. This means that you do not hold to atheism because it is true , but rather because of a series of chemical reactions.[. . .]No atheist has successfully addressed this problem, although you are invited to try.
DW: "There is truth in the theism-atheism controversy." Amen. You are able to say so because you assume that truth is objective. Again, you bet. But objective truth cannot be validly derived from the premises of your worldview. You are borrowing objective rationality and morality from the Christian worldview in order to attack the rationality and morality of the Christian worldview.
DW:[. . .] On your assumptions , the chance collection of atoms called Jews objected to the Holocaust; the random atoms called Nazis did not. And so what? Given atheism, what is the difference? Do the good atoms wear white hats? [. . .] Objective and universal standards of reason, morality, and beauty simply cannot exist in your purely material world. You are fighting Christianity with borrowed Christian weapons.
DW: If morality is not objective, then it is subjective. If it is subjective, then it is as diverse as five billion subjective states of mind. Such fragmented subjectivity provides no authoritative ethical voice, and hence no morality deserving of the name. Related to this, you must now disclaim "objective rationality" as well as "objective morality," for the two are built on the same foundation -- or rather, in your worldview, not built on the same non-foundation. But if objective rationality does not exist, then your worldview does not permit you to reason for three words in a row, much less 115. The laws of logic are as nonmaterial as the God you so diligently oppose. [ rest of debate deleted as it turned into a contest of assertions]
Originally appeared in Credenda/Agenda (Vol. 7; No. 1) =================================================================
My Credo, by Cornelius Van Til
C. My proposal, therefore, for a consistently Christian
methodology of apologetics is this:
[ much deleted ]
3. That we appeal to man as man, God's image. We do so
only if we set the non-Christian principle of the
rational autonomy of man against the Christian principle
of the dependence of man's knowledge on God's knowledge
as revealed in the person and by the Spirit of Christ.
4. That we claim, therefore, that Christianity alone is
reason able for men to hold. It is wholly irrational to
hold any other position than that of Christianity.
Christianity alone does not slay reason on the altar of "chance."
5. That we argue, therefore, by "presupposition." The
Christian, as did Tertullian, must contest the very principles of his opponent's position. The only "proof"
of the Christian position is that unless its truth is presupposed there is no possibility of "proving"
anything at all. The actual state of affairs as preached by Christianity is the necessary foundation of "proof"
itself.
6. That we preach with the understanding that the
acceptance of the Christ of Scripture by sinners who,
being alienated from God, sock to flee his face, comes
about when the Holy Spirit, in the presence of
inescapably clear evidence, opens their eyes so that
they see things as they truly are.
7. That we present the message and evidence for the
Christian position as clearly as possible, knowing that
because man is what the Christian says he is, the non-
Christian will be able to understand in an intellectual
sense the issues involved. In so doing, we shall, to a large extent, be telling him what he "already knows" but seeks to suppress. This "reminding" process provides a
fertile ground for the Holy Spirit, who in sovereign
grace may grant the non-Christian repentance so that he
may know him who is life eternal.
===============================================================
These last two quotes deal with God's Sovereignty
================================================================ TAG vs. TANG by Michael Butler From: The August 1996 Penpoint
Only if the Christian worldview happens to be false could the possibility of miracles be cogently precluded. According to Scripture's account, God is the transcendent and almighty Creator of heaven and earth. Everything owes its very existence and character to His creative power and definition (Gen. 1; Neh. 9:6; Col. 1:16-17). He makes things the way they are and determines that they function as they do. 'His understanding is infinite' (Ps. 147:5). Moreover, God sovereignly governs every event that transpires, determining what, when, where, and how anything takes place-from the movement of the planets to the decrees of kings to the very hairs of our heads (Eph. 1:11). According to the Bible, He is omnipotent and in total control of the universe. Isaiah 40 celebrates in famous phraseology the creation, delineating, directing, providence, and power of Jehovah (vv. 12, 22-28). He has the freedom and control over the created order that the potter has over the clay (Rom. 9:21). As the Psalmist affirms, 'Our God is in the heavens; He has done whatsoever He pleased' (115:3)." [8]
John M. Frame:
My own view of (4): I'm not convinced that there are any natural laws in that sense. I have no reason to believe that God rules the universe through the mediation of some such structure rather than directly. Certainly the biblical writers do not assume any such structure. Their language, rather, suggests that God "directly" brings about the thunderstorms, the harvests, the rising and falling of dynasties, etc. And certainly biblical writers do not identify events as miracles by comparing them with events proceeding from natural laws so defined. They just didn't have that concept of natural law in their intellectual vocabulary.