Transcendental Argumentation Made Easy

Undoubtedly, the cornerstone of the Van Tilian defense of the faith is the transcendental argument for Christian Theism. 

However, the philosophical nuances of this argument may seem complicated, especially for those not so philosophically inclined. So here’s…


How to argue transcendentally in 4 easy steps


1. Begin with some feature of human experience. 

Van Til taught that one can begin with any fact and formulate an objective proof of Christianity. And he was right. Greg Bahnsen famously formulated a toothpaste proof for God’s existence.

The transcendental argument starts with any fact or feature of human experience that is undeniable or taken for granted. We can start with the beauty of flowers, or music, or the applicability of mathematics, or the success of science, or the deliciousness of my mom’s cooking. It doesn’t matter.

What we’ll notice is that all these things that make our experience what it is (coherent, rational, and intelligible) all presuppose certain things. That is to say, without certain things, these features of our experience would not be possible. These things have been called “preconditions of intelligibility” by some Van Tilians.

For example, recognizing and appreciating the beauty of flowers would not be possible without a conceptual scheme that can categorize and interpret sense perception. The deliciousness of my mom’s cooking presupposes decades of trial and error dedicated to the development of recipes which in turn wouldn’t be possible without a uniform and predictable universe. 

Things like conceptual schemes and the uniformity of nature are what we can call preconditions of intelligible experience. They must be the case in order for our experience to be what it is. If we reflect on our experience and what we take for granted, we can come up with many more of such preconditions.

The point is that the transcendental argument begins with human experience and tries to uncover the necessary preconditions for the possibility of such experience. 


2. Assume Christianity is false. 

The next step in the transcendental approach is to assume that Christianity is false. 

It may seem weird to say that a Christian has to assume Christianity is false in an argument for Christianity. But this assumption is only being made for the sake of argument. We do not actually have to think Christianity is false. All we’re doing is asking our audience to make that assumption so we can derive something from it. It’s a perfectly logical move, and is an essential step in formulating a transcendental argument for Christianity. 

In practice, this assumption of the falsity of Christianity usually involves denying one or two fundamental tenets of the Christian faith. 


3. Derive from this an inconsistency with the feature of human experience. 

Once we’ve assumed the falsity of Christianity, the next step is to demonstrate that that assumption leads to the denial of the feature of experience we took for granted in step 1. Demonstrating this shows that the truth of Christianity is necessary for that feature of experience. If I assume Christianity is false and then all of a sudden I’m unable to account for the uniformity of nature, that proves that Christianity is necessary for the uniformity of nature. 

This step is probably the most important because it is where the bulk of the philosophical work is done. If you’re interested in learning how the denial of fundamental Christian tenets leads to the impossibility of the various things we take for granted in our experience, I wrote a book that goes into that. You can grab it here.


4. Conclusion 

After demonstrating that Christianity is necessary for the preconditions of intelligibility, we can then draw our conclusions. The conclusion is that Christianity is necessary for human experience to make sense, and that the various arguments the unbeliever wants to give against Christianity are all self-defeating because they presuppose Christianity.

And that’s transcendental argumentation made easy!

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