Saturday, March 07, 2009

Some notes about presuppositional apologetics as practiced by Sye (and now Dan)

     It is dishonest to call someone to account for something not in dispute. Logic is not in dispute. Furthermore, as logic is necessary to account for anything, any attempt to account for logic would be inherently circular.
     Your god does not account for logic. Please stop pretending that it does. Your god also has not revealed anything to you "in such a way that [you] can be certain." If it had, you would be specifying the method and why you consider the method to be certain. The whole "in such a way" line is designed either to disguise the fact that there was no revelation or to disguise the method to prevent analysis. Either way, the claim is self-refuting.
     Your god is not a necessary precondition for logic. Logic must be present before one can discuss preconditions.


Kaitlyn said...

"any attempt to account for logic would be inherently circular."

Unless logic is internally consistent.

Pvblivs said...

     No, it would remain circular. Circular reasoning just places the desired conclusion in the premises. It does not mean that the conclusion in inconsistent.

Stan, the Half-Truth Teller said...

as practiced by... Dan

I think the verb choice is especially appropriate here, but I thought the following list of alternative verbs (with adverbs, where needed) might be likewise appropriate:

1. regurgitated
2. parroted
3. copy/pasted
4. blindly embraced
5. clumsily wielded
6. misunderstood
7. confused

It's not exhaustive, but representative...

What especially annoys me about Dan's 'use' of presuppositionalism is the fact that he's shown that he is above its inherent dishonesty (whereas Sye has not). Dan must know that TAG fails to discriminate the "correct" version of god from the "incorrect" versions, so it is effectively worthless, even if it were valid. Similarly, Dan must also realize that TAG is not valid -- it is victim to the foundational presupposition we all share: that our ability to reason is valid.

Furthermore, as you note, the notion of "certain" revelation is shot. No TAG-using arguer can show how he can distinguish "certain revelation" from "maliciously false revelation." That is, a malicious deity could just as easily have provided disinformation "in such a way that [they] can be certain." To deny this possibility is to deny the TAGer's own notion that a "good" deity could provide actual information in such a manner.

The whole thing is slipshod smokescreening, and there is a reason that presuppositionalism is not generally taken seriously (from my own experience and research) in philosophical/theological circles.

Anyway, nice take, and I rather wish Dan would perform an internal critique regarding his "use" of TAG and/or presuppositional apologetics -- if he were to do so -- honestly -- he should conclude that "using" such a method is counter-productive, and corrodes his [already shaky] integrity.