Van Til's Argument, Part I
The late Christian philosopher and theologian, Cornelius Van Til is simultaneously the source of much fanfare and disdain in the world of Christian apologetics. Van Til is typically seen as the originator of what is today known as the "presuppositionalist" method of Christian defense. This method has been further expounded and refined by Van Til followers such as Greg Bahnsen and John Frame among others.
Van Til utilized a "Transcendental Argument" for Christianity. In essence, he noted that in order for reasoning of any sort to be possible, God must exist and be its source. To argue that God is non-existent, Van Til inferred, was like constructing a logical argument for the nonexistence of logic. Such reasoning defeats itself. For the very thing being denied in the argument (e.g., logic) must exist in order to make the argument.
Thus, Van Til and his camp have relied on the claim that if any sort of reasoning can take place, God must exist to make this possible. God is the source of all things including the laws of logic and our thought life. Thus, the very fact that the atheist is reasoning demonstrates that God exists. Upon arguing, then, the atheist has conceded the reality of God.
Critics of Van Til's argument are myriad and include the Christian apologists working today: Craig, Moreland, Geisler, Habermas, etc.
From reading the critiques of these critics, I tend to agree that the Transcendental Argument as it has been interpreted by Vant Til's followers and his critics is fallacious. It simply posits that God is necessary for reasoning and leave it at that. The question is never answered as to WHY we should think that if God is nonexistent, then reasoning is impossible.
Of course, one could construct an argument that if God is nonexistent than logic and minds and thus reasoning won't exist. This has in fact been done with great success by scholars like Plantinga, Reppert, Quentin Smith and others. However, in taking this approach, one abandons the "presuppositionalist" school and opts for traditional argumentation in proving God's reality.
However, I'm not sure one must opt for the traditional route in this way. The controversy seems to lie with what the nontheist is willing to grant regarding the preconditions of argumentation. If one agrees that logic requires the reality of nonphysical laws of logic and that such laws must reside in a mind, then one in effect does seem to concede that a personal mind like God does exist. For humans discovered logic, they didn't invent it. Thus, there must be a mind outside of and prior to humans that holds these logical laws.
Thus, if the atheist concedes this much, then the apologists need not ARGUE that reasoning requires God. He merely has to point out to the nonbeliever that according to the nonbelievers own beliefs a God must be real. The atheist's very reasoning presupposes it. Thus, the "presuppositional" apologetic is back in full force.
But how can we make atheists agree to or see that they really do have these preconceptions about reasoning and logic? That's something I wish to explore in the next post.
Van Til utilized a "Transcendental Argument" for Christianity. In essence, he noted that in order for reasoning of any sort to be possible, God must exist and be its source. To argue that God is non-existent, Van Til inferred, was like constructing a logical argument for the nonexistence of logic. Such reasoning defeats itself. For the very thing being denied in the argument (e.g., logic) must exist in order to make the argument.
Thus, Van Til and his camp have relied on the claim that if any sort of reasoning can take place, God must exist to make this possible. God is the source of all things including the laws of logic and our thought life. Thus, the very fact that the atheist is reasoning demonstrates that God exists. Upon arguing, then, the atheist has conceded the reality of God.
Critics of Van Til's argument are myriad and include the Christian apologists working today: Craig, Moreland, Geisler, Habermas, etc.
From reading the critiques of these critics, I tend to agree that the Transcendental Argument as it has been interpreted by Vant Til's followers and his critics is fallacious. It simply posits that God is necessary for reasoning and leave it at that. The question is never answered as to WHY we should think that if God is nonexistent, then reasoning is impossible.
Of course, one could construct an argument that if God is nonexistent than logic and minds and thus reasoning won't exist. This has in fact been done with great success by scholars like Plantinga, Reppert, Quentin Smith and others. However, in taking this approach, one abandons the "presuppositionalist" school and opts for traditional argumentation in proving God's reality.
However, I'm not sure one must opt for the traditional route in this way. The controversy seems to lie with what the nontheist is willing to grant regarding the preconditions of argumentation. If one agrees that logic requires the reality of nonphysical laws of logic and that such laws must reside in a mind, then one in effect does seem to concede that a personal mind like God does exist. For humans discovered logic, they didn't invent it. Thus, there must be a mind outside of and prior to humans that holds these logical laws.
Thus, if the atheist concedes this much, then the apologists need not ARGUE that reasoning requires God. He merely has to point out to the nonbeliever that according to the nonbelievers own beliefs a God must be real. The atheist's very reasoning presupposes it. Thus, the "presuppositional" apologetic is back in full force.
But how can we make atheists agree to or see that they really do have these preconceptions about reasoning and logic? That's something I wish to explore in the next post.
posted by Tom Wanchick at 7:35 PM
8 Comments:
If one agrees that logic requires the reality of nonphysical laws of logic and that such laws must reside in a mind, then one in effect does seem to concede that a personal mind like God does exist.
I see a few problems with that line of argument...
1) I'm not entirely sure that I grant that the laws of logical are non-physical. However, I'm ambivalent about that, so I'll let it pass.
2) Why must logical laws reside in a mind? Why can't they be implicitly an aspect of the environment?
You're saying that God stored away the laws of logic for safe-keeping until humans started figuring them out, because they had to be stored in a mind? How and when did the transfer take place (the tree of knowledge, maybe?)?
3) Your conclusion does not follow from the premises, anyway.
Why not simply posit that minds (non-God minds) have always existed?
If interested, there is a debate between Frege and Husserl on just this issue:
If one agrees that logic requires the reality of nonphysical laws of logic and that such laws must reside in a mind
Frege argues that the laws of logic are not like laws of nature that determine how anything operates but like laws of ethics that instead determine how things should operate regardless of whether anything behaves in that way. Husserl held, instead, that there could be no laws of logic unless they described the operations of actual minds. It is hard to see what justification there is for Husserl's stance (he did give up his views in light of Frege's criticisms). How could 'Modus ponens does not fail to preserve truth' be false simply because there is no matter and no mentation?
Tom said From reading the critiques of these critics, I tend to agree that the Transcendental Argument as it has been interpreted by Vant Til's followers and his critics is fallacious. It simply posits that God is necessary for reasoning and leave it at that. The question is never answered as to WHY we should think that if God is nonexistent, then reasoning is impossible.
I'm sorry you feel this way Tom. If this is the conclusion you come to, it seems obvious you have not interacted with the primary material (Bahnsen, Frame, Van Til, Jordon, Hays, et. al.).
You might want read an article by James Jordon If Knowledge Then God: The Epistemological Theistic Arguments of Plantinga and Van Til (2005).
You can also go to this page or this page and you will find enough material to keep you busy for a long time. I do have the evidential (using this as a general term for the other positions) guys in there as well. They have much to offer, Bahnsen, Van Til, (certainly) Frame, and others would agree.
Looking forward to your next post.
The question on the blog: "The question is never answered as to WHY we should think that if God is nonexistent, then reasoning is impossible."
If one attempts to answer this by suspending the premise contained in the affirmation "if God is nonexistent, then reasoning is impossible" one denies the premise. [I have always said that a rationaist argues "If I, as a rationalist, using rationalism / foudationalist presuppositions / methodolodgy, wanted to become a presuppositinalist I couldn't; hence presuppositinalism is in error." This blog is an instance of this problem.] Read the material noted by Jeff Downs and investigate the notion of "the impossibility of the contrary."
Tom wrote: "I tend to agree that the Transcendental Argument as it has been interpreted by Vant Til's followers and his critics is fallacious. It simply posits that God is necessary for reasoning and leave it at that. The question is never answered as to WHY we should think that if God is nonexistent, then reasoning is impossible."
My apologies, but you betray your ignorance of presuppositional apologetics.
I don't think that Tom's ignorance, if, indeed, he is ignorant, is something that he can be blamed for. I, too, would perhaps very much like to be a presuppositionalist, but I simply cannot find a lengthy, systematised statement of their arguments. The paper posted above was a good'un, but it was published this year! What on earth did the presuppositionalists get by on before this year?
Moi: What on earth did the presuppositionalists get by on before this year?
Well, Van Til to start. For me, it was Greg Bahnsen, John Frame, Lane Tipton, Scott Oliphant, Richard Pratt, Michael Butler, et. al.
Where have you been looking Moi, presuppositional apologetics (in its current form) has been around for year. Now, I will grant you (sadly) that we are not producing 40 books (like the evidentialists) a year!, but there is plenty of material. There is probably more audio out there than anything.
If you are interested, check out this page and for starters check out the Michael Butler audio.
Books, I was first suggest The Battle Belongs to the Lord: The Power of Scripture for Defending Our Faith. K. Scott Oliphint (P&R, 2003; ISBN#: 0-8755-2561-X) and then maybe Alway's Ready by Greg Bahnsen.
I think some of the best beginners material is Faith Facts and False Worldview by Greg Bahnsen.
On the other hand, try Van Til. I am not quite sure why some say he is hard to read. He might use language at time which is from his schooling, but over all, I think he is doable.
Thanks for your time. Let me know if I can help in any other way.
After having read some Van Til and Plantinga and my own thoughts on the subject, I think the best way to argue for Gods existence is by showing the opposing viewpoint( whatever it is), is contradictory.
Firstly, the believer must always assert the truth of Gods existence and the infalability of Scripture as a beginning axiom. The proof comes in when every single rival system is shown to have some form of contradiction in it, or as it relates to the world. Logic itself will be proven to be impossible without God's existence in the sense that a right definition of logic( valid reasoning) will include both sound premises and reasoning that follows from premise to premise.
Ultimately, there will be no possible appeal to the use of logic without God, as every single counter argument will have either a false premise( or more) or faulted reasoning( a contrary to fact will occur in a premise or some kind of internal contradiction).
For illustrative purposes think of the movie War Games in the 1980s where the computer Matthew Broderick is playing goes through All the possible scenarios for winning a nuclear war ,and, All fail.
Therefore, the statement there is a possible scenario where a nuclear war is won, contradicts itself. All logical systems that contain premises where some kind of a global nuclear war is winnable are false, the only logical system left is one that says a nuclear war is un winnable. Likewise, any scenario that posits no God contradicts itself at some point. Now, this is just an analogy but hopefully, it communicates the point I am trying to make( I am also using it in a negative sense).
I, however, might structure the argument a little differently than the transcendental is structured. It goes something like this, if no God then no world( via contradiction), if no world, then no logical reasoning in the world( as it doesn't exist. Once this is seen by the unbeliever, the Truth and consistency of Holy Scripture are then asserted as the only system that contains ONLY sound premises and valid deduction.
I hope this helps and that it is neither convoluted or verbose.
Post a Comment
<< Home