Bahnsen’s Poof
By Dawson Bethrick
The
following is my May
13, 2004 posting to the All
Bahnsen Discussion List. Aside from a few minor edits and enhancements,
what you are about to read is the same posting which I submitted to the list.
Bahnsen's
"Transcendental Poof of the Existence of God"
In
their discussion, Paul (a presuppositionalists) and Nick (a non-believer) seem
to differ on whether or not Bahnsen actually presented an argument for his
god-belief assertions. In msg #316, Paul attributes the following statement to Nick:
"Bahnsen never argued for his position." (I have been unable to find
the actual post where Nick stated this.)
Paul
denies this, and in his msg #324 he wrote the following:
Is this your opinion, now? Michael Martin was going
to debate Bahnsen, you don't think he 'analyzed' the debate? That is a stretch.
Yet he still called it *arguments.* ...[This] served to refute yoru claim that Bahnsen never argued. Besides, read you
comments. I provided statements by atheists who said Bahnsen *argued.* [sic]
In
his msg #330, Nick offered to "cite crucial assertions
that Bahnsen stated without arguing." Indeed, it seems that the best way to
refute Nick's statement would be to reproduce Bahnsen's argument. Does anyone
disagree?
But
I would also draw your attention to statements made by Michael Martin himself
which relate to this controversy. In his essay Does
Induction Presume the Existence of the Christian God? Martin makes the
following comment:
In order to evaluate TAG systematically it is necessary
to have a clear statement of it. I have been unable to find one. To be sure,
the conclusion of TAG is clear enough. However, although Bahnsen in his
lectures reiterated TAG's conclusion, he said very
little about how this was reached.
So,
I think it would be difficult to rule out the possibility that, if Martin has
elsewhere stated "Bahnsen argues...," he was probably speaking
euphemistically in the interest of giving benefit to the doubt. Technically
speaking, however, it seems that Martin found Bahnsen's lack of a clear
argument frustrating.
In
his msg #305,
Premise 1: Nothing exists or God exists.
Premise 2: Something exists.
Conclusion: Therefore, God exists. (1)
Now,
I suppose one could call this an argument, for it takes on the form of an
argument. But of course, the problem here is that the initial premise needs to
be defended, and to date I've not seen anyone defend it, even though both Nick
(msg #307) and I (msg #312) have called for it.
The
argument
Premise 1: Nothing exists or Geusha
exists.
Premise 2: Something exists.
Conclusion: Therefore, Geusha
exists.
To
the extent that Bahnsen's "argument" is valid, so is the
"argument" for the existence of Geusha, and
for precisely the same reasons. However, both lack a defense. Consistency (a
favorite presuppositionalist term?) would have it
that, if one rejects the former, he would reject the latter as well. So, in the
end, is it really an argument? I trow not.
Now,
many apologists have pointed with glee to Bahnsen's performance in his debate
with Gordon Stein as a shining example of presuppositional apologetics -
specifically TAG - in action. For instance, John Frame says that "Greg
Bahnsen utterly bewildered atheist spokesman Gordon Stein in a debate some
years ago with his 'transcendental argument for the existence of God'... Stein
was ready to answer the traditional proofs, but not this one!" (2) Now, I've examined the content of this debate on
numerous occasions, and I must say it is not clear where exactly Bahnsen
presents an actual argument. It seems to me that Bahnsen merely asserts
"God" as the foundation to everything and then proclaims that
anything which does not acknowledge this is somehow false or invalid. It seems
that Bahnsen only succeeds in multiplying his burdens without meeting any of
them, for now he has to (1) prove that there's a god, and (2) prove that everything
else is riding on it. Epistemologically speaking, Bahnsen manages to get
himself deeper and deeper into debt. That's not what I would call a prudent way
to conduct a debate.
Now,
if we examine the portion of Bahnsen's opening statement in his debate with
Stein where he presents his case, we find that this is Bahnsen's strategy:
multiply burdens instead of meeting them. Thanks to the All-Bahnsen list's very
own Chris Kersey (3), there is a printable
transcript of the Bahnsen-Stein debate available on the web here.
Below
I have pasted the last four paragraphs of Bahnsen's opening statement which are
headed with the following subtitle: "The Transcendental Argument For the
Existence Of God" - which would lead me to expect to find the presentation
of an argument somewhere therein. But unfortunately, nowhere do I find any
chain of inference which leads to the conclusion, "Therefore, God
exists." Now, typically apologists have attempted to excuse Bahnsen for
this apparent oversight by claiming that TAG is what they call an
"indirect argument." Okay, but even Frame answers this response:
"Any indirect argument of this sort can be turned into a direct argument
by some creative phrasing." (4) If that's the case, why doesn't Bahnsen do this, and, seeing that he
hasn't, what "creative phrasing" do apologists offer in order to
clarify what Bahnsen should have made clear?
Here
are the last four paragraphs of Bahnsen's opening statement:
GB> The
Transcendental Argument For the Existence Of God
GB> And so I come thirdly then to the
transcendental proof of
GB> God's existence. How should the difference of
opinion between
GB> the theist and the atheist be rationally
resolved? That was my
GB> opening question. We've seen two of Dr. Steins
errors
GB> regarding it: The crackers in the pantry
fallacy, and the
GB> pretended neutrality fallacy.
GB> In the process of discussing them, we've
observed that belief
GB> in the existence of God is not tested in any
ordinary way like
GB> other factual claims; and the reason for that
is metaphysically
GB> because of the non-natural character of God
and epistemologically
GB> because of the presuppositional character of
commitment for or
GB> against His existence.
GB> Arguments over conflicting presuppositions
between world-views
GB> therefore must be resolved somewhat
differently and yet still
GB> rationally than conflicts over factual
existence claims within a
GB> world-view or system of thoughts. When we go
to look at the
GB> different world-views that atheists and
theists have, I suggest
GB> that we can prove the existence of God from
the impossibility of
GB> the contrary.
GB> The transcendental proof for God's existence
is that without
GB> Him, it is impossible to prove anything. The
atheist world-view
GB> is irrational and cannot consistently provide
the preconditions
GB> of intelligible experience, science, logic or
morality. The
GB> atheist world-view cannot allow for laws of
logic, the uniformity
GB> of nature, the ability for the mind to
understand the world, and
GB> moral absolutes. In that sense, the atheist
world-view cannot
GB> account for our debate tonight.
In
the first paragraph, Bahnsen makes it clear that he is going to present
"the transcendental proof of God's existence.” But immediately he digresses
into the issue of "the difference of opinion between the theist and the
atheist," and turns the spotlight on "two of Dr. Steins errors"
[sic]. What do Dr. Stein's errors have to do with Dr. Bahnsen's
"proof"?
In
the second paragraph, Bahnsen continues shining the spotlight on "Dr.
Steins errors," reviewing his own efforts to excuse the question of God's
existence form tests conducted "in any ordinary way like other factual
claims." What specifically does Bahnsen mean by "any ordinary
way" in this context? He doesn't say. Bahnsen's aim here is to distinguish
the nature of his claim from "other factual claims," which makes me
wonder what warrants his assertion's claim to factuality since he wants to put
some distance between it and "other factual claims." Notice that
Bahnsen has yet to present an argument. But, Bahnsen does add another burden to
his plate here: Not only does he have to prove the existence of his god, he now
has to prove "the non-natural character of God" as well as "the
presuppositional character of commitment for or against His existence."
In
the third paragraph, Bahnsen still has yet to present an argument "for the
existence of God." Even before he's presented an argument demonstrating
the existence of his god, he's already announcing limitations on what will and
will not qualify as an acceptable means of validating his claim that his god
exists. Bahnsen's statement suggests that "the different world-views that atheists
and theists have" will somehow "prove the existence of God from the
impossibility of the contrary." So, Bahnsen adds another burden onto his
cart: not only does he need to prove that his god exists, he also needs to
prove that it is impossible for his god not to exist.
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.
Footnotes
(1) In personal correspondence with me, presuppositionalist Mike Warren (website)
made the following comment: “The argument that
(2) Apologetics
to the Glory of God, (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1994),
76n.19.
(3) When my message was posted on the All Bahnsen
list, the moderator inserted the following comment at this point: “I would take
a bow if I didn't suspect I was the target of some cruel jest here.” Even after
a polite offlist exchange with the moderator
regarding his inserted comment, it remains unclear to me why he thought I was
targeting him, or what he thought I was intending something cruel against him.