What Is “The Impossibility of the Contrary”?

If one has studied Presuppositional Apologetics even a little, one would no doubt have come across the phrase “the impossibility of the contrary”. But what does it mean? Well, obviously it means that the contrary is impossible. But what is the contrary and in what sense is it impossible? And if it is impossible, what significance does that have to our apologetic approach?

Logically speaking, two propositions are said to be contraries if they cannot both be true. For example, the propositions ‘I am currently in Athens’ and ‘I am currently in Barcelona’ are contraries because they cannot both be true at the same time and in the same sense. Contraries, though, can both be false. Contradictories, on the other hand, are propositions which always have opposite truth values. In other words, A and B are contradictories if whenever A is true, B is false, and vice versa.

The phrase “impossibility of the contrary” should rather be called “impossibility of the contradictory” if we are being technically precise. Reason being that we are concerned with the position which contradicts Christian theism. The contrary, then, is the position which denies the Christian view - that is, the non-Christian worldview. 

In what sense is the contrary - the non-Christian worldview - impossible? Let’s see what Van Til had to say:

The contrary is impossible only if it is self-contradictory when operating on the basis of its own assumptions. It is this too that we should mean when we say that we are arguing ad hominem. We do not really argue ad hominem unless we show that someone's position involves self-contradiction, and there is no self-contradiction unless one's reasoning is shown to be directly contradictory of or to lead to conclusions which are contradictory of one's own assumptions.

For Van Til, the contrary is impossible because if it were to be held consistently, one would end up in self-contradiction. What Van Til describes above has been termed performative inconsistency. Performative inconsistency, simply speaking, occurs when one must deny a view in order to affirm it. And it is the fact that the contrary leads to inevitable performative inconsistency that makes it impossible.

The notion of impossibility employed here, then, can be called transcendental impossibility. The contrary is transcendentally impossible because it leads to performative inconsistency. If one denies the Christian view, one must affirm it whenever they engage in any rational activity. This is because Christianity is transcendentally necessary. 

The significance of the impossibility of the contrary to our apologetic endeavors is that demonstrating the impossibility of the contrary demonstrates the rational necessity of Christian theism. This is the essence of the Transcendental Argument for Christian Theism. 

To demonstrate the impossibility of the contrary, we must show that a rejection of fundamental tenets of the Reformed Christian worldview leads to a rejection of certain preconditions of rational experience - and , therefore, to performative inconsistency. 

Fortunately, that is a task I took on in my book, The Folly of Unbelief. In it, I go over various ways in which the rejection of Christianity leads one to philosophical and intellectual absurdity. You can grab a copy here

Cheers!

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Failure of Classical Apologetics

Classical apologetics attempts to rationally defend the Christian faith by employing, in most cases, the traditional proofs for God's existence. Offering proofs such as the cosmological, teleological, ontological and moral are the first in a two-step approach to establishing Christianity. The second being offering arguments from fulfilled  prophecy, miracles, resurrection, etc. Classical apologists aim to first establish that this is a theistic universe and then appeal to the arguments mentioned in the second step to distinguish Christianity from other forms of theism. In my estimation, such an approach to apologetics proves inadequate and unsatisfactory for reasons I will spell out shortly. I will divide these reasons into two categories - theological and philosophical. Theological Since the conclusion of the classical approach is that Christianity is probably true or is the most probable amongst others, the unbeliever is always left with an excuse to reject the existence of Go...
Read more

Brute Facts Are Mute Facts: A Van Tilian Transcendental Argument

Recent discussions on the Internet have led me to believe that there is a need to write this post. Here I will be clarifying, formalizing, and defending an argument which I believe is central to Van Til’s thought. To my knowledge, there is no such clarification and formalization of the argument available and so in writing this article, I hope to bring something fresh to the Van Tilian’s arsenal of arguments. Van Til’s Doctrine of Analogy Central to Van Til’s thought is the doctrine of analogy. Van Til made a distinction between reasoning that is univocal and reasoning which is analogical . Greg Bahnsen describes univocal reasoning in this way: “ Univocal” reasoning does not honor the Creator-creature distinction, but assumes that God and man approach knowing in the same way and under essentially the same conditions. It refuses to “think God’s thoughts after Him” (cf. chap. 4.5 above) and asserts its intellectual autonomy. 1 However, for Van Til, human knowledge must be analogical. Tha...
Read more

Why Atheists Can’t Know That 2 Apples + 2 Apples = 4 Apples...

The title of this article may be a bit misleading. There are obviously very capable and very knowledgeable mathematicians who are atheists. Such people do not only know that two apples plus two apples equals four apples, they can also provide elaborate proofs of the various mathematical theorems that undergird such a truth. This post is not meant as an attack on the intellect of atheists but rather as an attack on atheism as a philosophical system . A more accurate title would be “ Why Atheists Can’t Know that 2 Apples + 2 Apples = 4 Apples If They Were Being Consistent With Their Philosophical System ”. I know, not very catchy! But what is it about atheism as a philosophical system that precludes knowledge of a truth so basic and fundamental that even children know it? The short answer is that atheism commits one to an autonomous epistemology—an epistemology that rejects the necessity of divine revelation. Believing that two apples plus two apples equals four apples is easy enough. Th...
Read more