Did Greg Bahnsen Have An Argument?

We come now to the very last paragraph in his opening statement, and now it appears he's trying to get back on track to meeting the first of his confessional burdens. He makes the conclusion of his argument very clear: "The transcendental proof for God's existence is that without Him, it is impossible to prove anything." Now, this is an assertion which needs a defense. It's certainly not self-evidently true, and Bahnsen does not give us any reason why we should accept this claim as opposed to the claim that "without Geusha, it is impossible to prove anything." Does Bahnsen present an argument for his claim? No. Immediately he turns the spotlight back onto "the atheist world-view," claiming that it "is irrational and cannot consistently provide the preconditions of intelligible experience, science, logic or morality." So, not only does Bahnsen not present an argument for his conclusion, he manages to lay another burden on his wagon. It's getting pretty heavy 'bout now. Has Bahnsen proven that his god exists? Not yet. Has Bahnsen proven that "the atheist world-view cannot account for our debate tonight"? No, not yet. He hasn't even presented an argument yet. He's simply asserted the very position he's called to prove, and he's added some more claims to his proof deficit. It seems that Bahnsen doesn't offer a proof here. Rather, we should call this the "Transcendental Poof of the existence of God," for it seems that Bahnsen presumes to have the power to say "poof!" and voilá, “God exists.” That is, Bahnsen's god exists because he wants his god to exist. Where's the argument?

It seems, in the case of his debate with Gordon Stein, Bahnsen fails to present an argument, just as Nick has indicated.

Dawson Bethric

These are the words of Dawson Bethric over at Incinerating Presuppositionalism. Dawson is interacting with Greg Bahnsen’s debate with Gordon Stein. Dawson labels this post, the meat of which you see above in a manner that leads one to believe this is his answer to Bahnsen’s TAG. TAG stands for transcendental argument for God. The idea is that TAG successfully refutes, not each and every other worldview as they come along opposing Christianity, but instead, TAG refutes the non-Christian approach before it can even get started. The argument is takes the form of a disjunction of a contradictory. A v ~A, ~~A, therefore A. Either Christian theism or not Christian theism, not not Christian theism, therefore, Christian theism. Now, the opponent will object and claim that the argument should not be construed as a disjunctive of a contradiction. Hence, the approach to TAG employs a false dilemma. [See Mike Butler’s paper on The Transcendental Argument for God’s Existence] What the opponent then must do is show that there are other alternatives available, other paths we can take. But for the Christian, it is either Christ or not Christ. It isn’t either Christ or Baal, or Mohammed, or etc. This is the power of the TAG. It takes the exclusive claims of Christian theism seriously and applies them not only to philosophy but also employs them in reason and in apologetics. It is this that Dawson and every other critic of presuppositionalism must deal with.

Dawson conveniently ignores this argument structure, opting rather to criticize other forms of argumentation employed by presuppositionalism. For example, here Dawson thinks he has something when he mockingly changes modus ponens to Geusha. Bahnsen employs Modus Ponens and Modus Tollens to argue for God. The argument would be framed thus:

Human predication --> God

Human predication

/ God

or

Human predication --> God

~God

/ ~Human predication

But there is perhaps a better way to frame the argument. After all, A presupposes B is not the same as A implies B.

Human predication presuppose God
~God
/ Human predication * ~Human predication

This latter argument form demonstrates that in order for any truth value to be assigned to human predication or no human predication, God must be presupposed. The transcendental argument is saying that if there is no God, there is no truth value where human predication is concerned. All this is simply to point out that there is a difference in traditional arguments which trade on implication and transcendental arguments which trade on presupposition. Collect is helpful in summary: "However, if God's existence is a necessary condition for the both the truth or falsity of causality, then denying God's existence while results in a failure to predicate anything at all." [Don Collett: Van Til and Presuppositionalism Revisited. See also Strawson, An Introduction to Logical Theory]

Now, Dawson claims that Bahnsen has not made an argument. It is hard to imagine that anyone could listen to the Bahnsen-Stein debate or read Greg Bahnsen and conclude that he has not made an argument. Perhaps Dawson has picked up on Ayn Rand’s method of choosing not to actually engage with opposing views but rather to employ emotion-filled rhetoric in an attempt to counter his detractors. When you read Dawson, ask yourself if he is really dealing with the issues or if it sounds like he is talking to others, making short flashy statements designed to impress the less informed. I am not saying this is the case, but I am saying it is worthy analysis.

I want to turn now to an argument against TAG that Dawson makes elsewhere. And that argument is that TAG commits the fallacy of Petitio Principii, or Begging the Question. In his interaction with another presuppositionalist, Dawson makes the following criticism: “If on the one hand knowledge and logic presuppose the existence of the Christian god, then Premise 1A and Premise 2B contain elements which assume the truth of their respective Conclusions A and B (the existence of the Christian god, or the truth of Christian theism, which assumes the existence of the Christian god), and thus the two models of TAG which Chris has presented are by definition circular.”

Is Dawson’s criticism correct? Does the argument structure assume God in order to prove God? It is one thing for the presuppositionalist to presuppose God as he goes about arguing for God's existence, and quite another for his argument to be structured in that way. The difference is that the former is known as a pragmatic presupposition while the latter is known as a semantic presupposition. There is a clear distinction between the two. [See presupposition in The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy] What TAG does is begin with human experience, in this instance, human predication, and from human experience it argues that God is the necessary precondition for the experience of human predication and in order to prove this to be the case, it shows that the contradiction of this view is impossible. What is being argued is that S' is a condition of the truth or falsity of S. This means that to show S false one must presuppose S' and to show that S is true, one must presuppose S'.

Now, Bahnsen would call it the impossibility of the contrary, but by contrary he means contradictory. Additionally, that this is an argument is, as Mike Butler puts it, beyond debate. Whether it is a good argument is a different matter. To answer Dawson’s charge of circularity, however, is not too difficult. As Craig admits, there is more to it than that. TAG is an epistemological transcendental argument. Characterizing it as having vicious circularity or begging the question simply means that one does not truly understand what TAG is doing.
   

I will structure the argument above a little differently:

If God did not exist, human predication would not be possible.

Human predication is possible.

Therefore, God exists.

What Dawson has done is confused a presupposition of an argument with a premise of an argument. This is just a different way of saying what I have already said about Dawson. Rather than criticizing the argument, he has drifted outside the argument to criticize the presupposition that lies outside the argument. One has to wonder if Dawson thinks that all arguments are free from presuppositions in back of them. If that is the case, then it is hard to imagine any argument surviving the accusation of circularity. And that seems to be something that Dawson has missed entirely. In fact, one does not have to look very far to recognize that Dawson bring his own presuppositions that serve to inform his own argumentation. Funny how that Tiger that has been let out of its cage is entirely indifferent toward the one that let him out. He will tare the man with the key apart just as quickly as he will the one that jeers his captivity. Dawson ends up being mauled by his own Tiger. And if that is not the case, then we are both faced with a toothless, classless pussycat.

In fact, I would say that Dawson Bethric's grasp of what Van Til was doing and Bahnsen after him, by employing a transcendental argument for is terribly confused. As Collet rightly points out in his excellent paper, Van Til and Transcendental Argument Revisited, Van Til was concerned to make sure that Christians employ the sort of apologetic argument that preserves the logically primitive and absolute character of God's existence. This can only be done by starting with the premise that God's existence is the necessary precondition for argument itself. That's right, God's existence is the necessary precondition for argumentation itself. What this means is that the concept of God should function as a logically primitive proposition rather than a logically derived one.

What Dawson never seems to deal with is the "man behind the curtain" of Presuppositional Apologetics. What does that mean? It means that Dawson does not interact much, if at all, with the doctrines of divine aseity and transcendence. If he did, perhaps he could connect those dots. What Dawson, and many, many others fail to understand is that one cannot truly understand Presuppositional Apologetics unless they understand why it exists and what it seeks to accomplish. Van Til's apologetic is designed to protect reformed doctrine and more precisely God's self-contained, independent, and transcendent nature. If this doctrine is correct, and surely it is, then no axiom can be more ultimate than God's existence. Hence, traditional approaches unwittingly argue for God's existence as a logically derivative status, elevating other principles to an unacceptable primitive status inconsistent with basic Christian doctrine.

Once again, Don Collett is helpful: "Indeed, one may go further and raise the question whether finite creatures can begin any argument without making assumptions of some sort or other. The real question is not whether initial assumptions can be avoided, but whether subsequent argument confirms their soundness."

We are just getting started in our review of Dawson Bethric’s blog “Incinerating Presuppositionalism.” I anticipate a few more posts over the next month or two. I am disappointed to find that Bethric's arguments so far have proven to be better rhetoric than they are arguments.

For an excellent response to the criticism of circularity, see James Anderson’s post here.

Another Interaction with "Bahnsen Burner" aka, Dawson Bethric at "Incinerating Presuppositionalism"

I want to continue sharing my interactions with and review of Dawson Bethric over at Incinerating Presuppositionalism. I visited the blog to see if there were objections or critiques of presuppositional apologetics that I have either not thought about or read. As you might imagine, I found nothing new, nothing original, nothing even very interesting, and certainly nothing challenging. Nevertheless, I did want to provide you with at least one more interaction I have with Dawson and then a couple of reviews before moving on to some more interesting developments from Pew Research on the issue of homosexuality.

Here we go:

Ed: “Folks, the problem with Dawson's view is that it is hopeless subjective.”

So views that are based on facts and developed in accordance with reason are “hopeless subjective.” You tell us about yourself here, Ed.

Ed: “His(Dawson's) morality in his worldview has no transcendent ability.”

What is this supposed to mean?

RESPONSE: 
It means that Dawson's view of morality places it within the individual mind. Morality that is located within the individual mind is not, by definition, transcendent morality. At the same time, Dawson wants to condemn Christian morality because it places obedience to God above rescuing a human life if the choice is ever presented. The best Dawson can do is say it would be wrong for him to behave in such a way. But Dawson does not stop there. He wants to criticize me and the entire Christian ethical system as if somehow morality can be transcendent in his worldview. Simply speaking, such reasoning is a howler. How can a system of individual morality that exists in his individual rational mind be imposed, not only on others, but on an entire system of belief? If it foolish to even argue in that way. There is no logic to Dawson's view. Only a morality that transcends individual human experience can be imposed on humanity across the board. Dawson fails to see this for some reason. 

It really shouldn’t be that difficult to understand, Ed: “The purpose of morality is to teach you, not to suffer and die, but to enjoy yourself and live” (Ayn Rand, For the New Intellectual, p. 123). I want to live and enjoy my life, Ed, not suffer and die. Therefore, I’ll go with the Objectivist ethics. The fact that you resent this, Ed Dingess, tells us all we really need to know about you.

RESPONSE:
Notice that Dawson makes no attempt whatsoever to defend Ayn Rand's incredibly silly definition of morality. He just takes Rand's view of morality at face value as if her saying it makes it so. First, how can morality have a purpose if it is just part of the rational mind? If morality has a purpose and it is not transcendent, this must mean that morality's purpose is determined by the rational mind of the individual constructing it. And if this is true, then Rand's definition can only rightly be said to apply to her individual rational mind and no one else. How could it be otherwise. Dawson is silent. Morality has nothing to do with what we wish to do. I oftentimes wish to do things that I know I cannot do because they are immoral. If morality is driven by human desire, then anything goes and there is no morality. What if Dawson wants to protect his daughter and I have other sinister plans for her. Plans that please me but not Dawson. Dawson's desire to protect his daughter are no more moral than my sinister desires. It gets worse.

Ed: “Hitler was perfectly moral given that his morality was the product of his rational mind operating within his worldview.”

How do you figure? On the contrary, Hitler seems to have many things in common with the Christian god. After all, Hitler appealed to the Christian god in many of his speeches, and he believed that he had “a morally sufficient reason for the evil which exists.” Hitler expected to be obeyed on his own authority, and he backed up is authority with threats (cf. “believe or burn”). Hitler presumed for himself the power to choose who lives and who dies, and how. This does not resemble anything in Objectivist philosophy. But it has all the telling marks of religious mysticism.

RESPONSE:
Hitler's manipulation and crazy beliefs are nothing more than a red herring. What is material in Hitler's example is that Dawson's own definition of morality fails to classify Hitler as an evil and immoral man. Hitler's morality was created in his own individual rational mind and therefore, his deeds were quite moral where Dawson's definition of morality is concerned. It is really absurd but that is where the "Bahnsen Burner" takes us folks. Impressive, no? NO! In fact, quite unimpressive and sloppy.
Ed: “atheists simply cannot provide a shred of rational support for objective morality in any meaningful way whatsoever.”

I guess you simply have a different understanding of what “objective” means, Ed. Somehow, you have the feeling that the concept of objectivity as a philosophical principle is compatible with religion’s wishing-makes-it-so fantasy-hysteria. I’ve asked many Christians over the years to explain this, but unsurprisingly they can’t. Apparently they simply don’t know what objectivity is.

RESPONSE:
Notice that Dawson fails to actually address my claim. Instead, he parades another red herring. There is nothing subjective about the truth of Christianity because that truth is anchored in the self-contained ontological Triune God of Scripture. Christian experience is just as objective as the experience of breathing. Because God exists, and Scripture is true, all Christians have experienced, objectively, the give of faith, the supernatural phenomenon of being born again, etc. Christian belief and experience are anchored in the objective reality of God and His work of redemption in our lives. But that only begs the question of why it is that atheists cannot provide a shred of rational support for objective morality in any meaningful way whatsoever not doesn't it.

Ed: “Such exchanges have provided nothing interesting so far and it seems that only a fool would hold out hopes that they would.”

A common trait among the religions of the Near East is to vilify and scapegoat outsiders (e.g., “atheists”) simply for being outsiders. I suspect this collectivistic tendency has its roots in primitive ages when one tribe feared the tribe settled on the other side of the hill. It shuts down empathy and it closes the mind to learning.

RESPONSE:
This is simply a mindless ramble.

Ed: “As for human beings having some sort of capabilities by their very nature, nothing could be more controversial.”

Ah, here’s the appeal to lack of universal agreement again I suppose. So, given our nature, we don’t have any capabilities? That’s the Christian view? What does this say about our alleged “designer”? Our “designer,” according to Christianity, must have made us completely incompetent. And Christians complain that atheism leads to nihilism? This is beyond comical.

RESPONSE:
Notice that I did not say what Dawson seems to think I said. I am merely pointing out that what Ayn Rand and Dawson, along with her many minions, take to be dogmatically true and uncontroversial is far from it actually. Christian theism surely does teach that humans possess these capabilities, but not on the view that they are evolved slime somehow moving from non-consciousness things to conscious beings, from non-life to life, from non-rational to rational, from no knowledge to knowledge. Nothing could more absurd than a world view that asserts these things and as far as I can tell, these are precisely the sort of claims Dawson wants us to just take his word and of course Rand's word on. Sorry Dawson, we shall not allow you to get away with such sloppy, lazy thinking. 

Ed: “What I want you interact with more than anything else is my comment about knowledge.”

Ed, I’ve interacted with garbage like that for years. I’ve already spoken to it in numerous blog entries. If you’re really interested in learning more about my views of knowledge, my blog has over 400 entries just waiting for you to read them. But I don’t think you’re really interested in my views. You just want to argue and, apparently, make yourself look like a good fool for Jesus. You’ve achieved this last goal, whether you set out to accomplish it or not.

REPSONSE:
Notice that Dawson defaults to general statements about the "garbage" I am arguing without getting down into the ditch to show us that he has the ability to evaluate my claims, understand them, and refute them. He just runs past understanding and evaluation straight to "your claims are garbage. No intellectual worth their salt would behave this way. Dawson is demonstrating that he just doesn't want to believe and he seems tired from using his same old failed reasons.

If you want me to piece through your recent droppings on knowledge, I will have to charge you a fee. But I doubt you’ll pay it.

Ed: “You are assuming way more than I will allow you to in this conversation.”

You have no jurisdiction over what other minds will or will not assume, Ed. You have no authority here. Your wishing is worthless.

RESPONSE:
I have challenged Dawson to account for human knowledge within a belief system or conceptual scheme where, at one time, there was no knowledge. My argument is in my previous post. Knowledge requires knowledge. This line of thinking requires that knowledge, if it is to exist at all, must be eternal.

Summary
Dawson Bethric is no Bahnsen Burner. The title is laughable and the implication is a joke that no one is laughing at. Instead, anyone who has studied under Bahnsen for any amount of time will do a proverbial head slap when they interact with Dawson Bethric. They will immediate see the sophomoric approach for what it is and recognize that Dawson not only does not understand Christian theism, he does not understand Transcendental Arguments or Van Tillian Presuppositional Apologetics. I will continue to review Bethric's site and share my thoughts if I find anything of interest. I am not holding my breath at this point but you never know. As Dawson tells me, he has been at this for 10 years at least.