TAG is the Transcendental Argument for (the existence of) God. TAG's proponents have put forth the amazing claim that only by adopting the worldview of Christian theology can one justifiably use the tools of logic and reason when in the process of philosophical inquiry. Without making the essential presuppositions, they claim, without taking for granted the veracity of the Bible and the Gospels of Jesus Christ, one cannot make any justifiable claims to knowledge, one cannot use reason and logic with any degree of consistency or genuine utility because one cannot (at least in their eyes) found those tools on any objective, authoritative epistemology.
There are so many things wrong with this claim that it's hard to imagine where to begin. It seems expedient to look first to the actual source of this incredible view: The Bible. Not a philosophical book for the most part, but a collection of ancient poetry, history, and mythology. The objective person will determine simply by examining the influence of this book through-out history that its contents have never been consistently interpreted by theists themselves, let alone non-theists. How can this so-called authoritative source have resulted in such a staggering divergence of interpretation and explanation?
Even if I were to somehow be converted to Christianity, an event which I consider highly unlikely but not impossible, I would find myself in a staggering state of confusion as to which branch of Christianity to orient myself to. As it happens, the Bible itself offers no help, since each branch of Christianity interprets those documents in its own particular way and each branch of Christianity claims to base its beliefs and practices in the correct manner, even going so far as to call opposing Christian groups heretical, or just downright evil.
Arguably, the Bible has caused more division and contention among people than any other article(s) of literature. It has been the indirect cause of bloody ideological conflicts, periods of extreme and brutal intolerance, and is often used in the rationalization of bigotry, as well as any acts of violence that go along with that contemptible trait. Naturally, certain other religions and their supporting scriptures are just as guilty as Christianity in this regard.
I have no quarrel with people who claim to be a Christians and wish to devote their lives to their faith; but it's quite another thing to see them announcing to everyone outside their faith that they have staked a claim to the tools of reason and logic and that one must agree to their conditions before they will entertain any arguments. The presuppositionalists are trying to confiscate primary and basic cognitive tools which have been in use since man's infancy and pretend that they and only they can make genuine knowledge claims, and contrarily, that any knowledge claims posited by non-presuppositionalists may be disgarded out of hand, regardless of whether or not they make sense. What this essentially boils down to is this: it doesn't matter how rational or irrational his opponent's arguments may be. The presuppositionalist is under no obligation whatsoever to refute the content of the argument, nor even address it; he merely waves the content away with a pretentious flourish and claims that said content is meaningless without presupposing the veracity of the Christian God and scripture.
The TAGist proposes not some vague, undefined, unimaginable God-like presence, but a specific Deity with a name and a collection of official documents which rigidly describe what His intentions are for us and how He plans to deal with us according to how we live our lives; but at the same time, when questions are raised about incidents that occur in these official texts which in every sense contradict the notions of benevolence and mercy, such as the Flood, the concept of Hell and damnation, bizarre animal sacrifices, incest, plagues, and bloody wars, not to mention the idea of a "chosen" people towards whom God will show favor, then the TAGist necessarily falls back on the insistence that God cannot be understood, that our conception of divine justice is absolutely flawed by dint of our pathetically finite natures (despite the fact we are repeatedly told that the TAGist has the correct interpretation of scripture and that others who call themselves Christians have an incorrect interpretation and are therefore not really Christians) that we are degenerate, fallen sinners who have inherently flawed perceptual and conceptual faculties and are hopelessly unable to determine rightness or wrongness on our own or to make any sort of informed moral decisions. The TAG affords its proponent a perfect excuse to simply make bold assertions and simultaneously provides an equally perfect excuse for not having to defend said assertions or to pertinently address critiques offered on said assertions. A good way to recognize dogma when you see it is when those who espouse it have reached such a level of security in their belief that they sincerely do not feel obligated to argue in any real sense at all.
Any argument that does actually occur is absurdly loaded in the TAGist favor, since he can suggest, at any point along the way, that the non-believer's arguments are the result of his blindness to the truth imposed upon himself by way of his non-belief. The atheist makes no such claim about the theist. He believes that the theist has a fully functioning mind and is able to think and reason for himself, without the help of Divine Providence. The atheist believes that he and the theist are on equal footing, with no invisible means of support; he believes that the theist has come to his views willfully and gladly, and that he is not crippled from the start due to his inherently sinful and fallen nature; he believes that the theist is fully capable of making intellectual judgements independently, without the aid of supernatural intervention.
The TAG is a circular argument, a fact admitted by some it's most prominent proponents, such as Cornelius Van Til. It makes use of other fallacies as well, such as the argument with an appeal to force (argumentum ad baculum), and the argument with an appeal to authority (argumentum ad verecundiam); and, in my humble opinion, the concept of Original Sin makes any argument in support of it an attack on the character of the opponent (argumentum ad hominem). What the TAGist wants to do is switch the burden of proof to the non-believer; but since the non-believer is not making a positive claim, this is a cheap con which should not be tolerated. The TAGist makes the positive claim, and it is up to him to provide proof for that claim.
There are so many things wrong with this claim that it's hard to imagine where to begin. It seems expedient to look first to the actual source of this incredible view: The Bible. Not a philosophical book for the most part, but a collection of ancient poetry, history, and mythology. The objective person will determine simply by examining the influence of this book through-out history that its contents have never been consistently interpreted by theists themselves, let alone non-theists. How can this so-called authoritative source have resulted in such a staggering divergence of interpretation and explanation?
Even if I were to somehow be converted to Christianity, an event which I consider highly unlikely but not impossible, I would find myself in a staggering state of confusion as to which branch of Christianity to orient myself to. As it happens, the Bible itself offers no help, since each branch of Christianity interprets those documents in its own particular way and each branch of Christianity claims to base its beliefs and practices in the correct manner, even going so far as to call opposing Christian groups heretical, or just downright evil.
Arguably, the Bible has caused more division and contention among people than any other article(s) of literature. It has been the indirect cause of bloody ideological conflicts, periods of extreme and brutal intolerance, and is often used in the rationalization of bigotry, as well as any acts of violence that go along with that contemptible trait. Naturally, certain other religions and their supporting scriptures are just as guilty as Christianity in this regard.
I have no quarrel with people who claim to be a Christians and wish to devote their lives to their faith; but it's quite another thing to see them announcing to everyone outside their faith that they have staked a claim to the tools of reason and logic and that one must agree to their conditions before they will entertain any arguments. The presuppositionalists are trying to confiscate primary and basic cognitive tools which have been in use since man's infancy and pretend that they and only they can make genuine knowledge claims, and contrarily, that any knowledge claims posited by non-presuppositionalists may be disgarded out of hand, regardless of whether or not they make sense. What this essentially boils down to is this: it doesn't matter how rational or irrational his opponent's arguments may be. The presuppositionalist is under no obligation whatsoever to refute the content of the argument, nor even address it; he merely waves the content away with a pretentious flourish and claims that said content is meaningless without presupposing the veracity of the Christian God and scripture.
The TAGist proposes not some vague, undefined, unimaginable God-like presence, but a specific Deity with a name and a collection of official documents which rigidly describe what His intentions are for us and how He plans to deal with us according to how we live our lives; but at the same time, when questions are raised about incidents that occur in these official texts which in every sense contradict the notions of benevolence and mercy, such as the Flood, the concept of Hell and damnation, bizarre animal sacrifices, incest, plagues, and bloody wars, not to mention the idea of a "chosen" people towards whom God will show favor, then the TAGist necessarily falls back on the insistence that God cannot be understood, that our conception of divine justice is absolutely flawed by dint of our pathetically finite natures (despite the fact we are repeatedly told that the TAGist has the correct interpretation of scripture and that others who call themselves Christians have an incorrect interpretation and are therefore not really Christians) that we are degenerate, fallen sinners who have inherently flawed perceptual and conceptual faculties and are hopelessly unable to determine rightness or wrongness on our own or to make any sort of informed moral decisions. The TAG affords its proponent a perfect excuse to simply make bold assertions and simultaneously provides an equally perfect excuse for not having to defend said assertions or to pertinently address critiques offered on said assertions. A good way to recognize dogma when you see it is when those who espouse it have reached such a level of security in their belief that they sincerely do not feel obligated to argue in any real sense at all.
Any argument that does actually occur is absurdly loaded in the TAGist favor, since he can suggest, at any point along the way, that the non-believer's arguments are the result of his blindness to the truth imposed upon himself by way of his non-belief. The atheist makes no such claim about the theist. He believes that the theist has a fully functioning mind and is able to think and reason for himself, without the help of Divine Providence. The atheist believes that he and the theist are on equal footing, with no invisible means of support; he believes that the theist has come to his views willfully and gladly, and that he is not crippled from the start due to his inherently sinful and fallen nature; he believes that the theist is fully capable of making intellectual judgements independently, without the aid of supernatural intervention.
The TAG is a circular argument, a fact admitted by some it's most prominent proponents, such as Cornelius Van Til. It makes use of other fallacies as well, such as the argument with an appeal to force (argumentum ad baculum), and the argument with an appeal to authority (argumentum ad verecundiam); and, in my humble opinion, the concept of Original Sin makes any argument in support of it an attack on the character of the opponent (argumentum ad hominem). What the TAGist wants to do is switch the burden of proof to the non-believer; but since the non-believer is not making a positive claim, this is a cheap con which should not be tolerated. The TAGist makes the positive claim, and it is up to him to provide proof for that claim.
No comments:
Post a Comment