Bahnsen Vs Stein Debate On Existence Of God

[♦ ficino ♦]

Here's an interesting debate between Gary Bahnsen, a Calvinist "presuppositionalist" apologist, and Gordon Stein, an atheist biologist:

 

http://www.bellevuechristian.org/faculty/dribera/htdocs/PDFs/Apol_Bahnsen_Stein_Debate_Transcript.pdf

 

Bahsen relies on the Transcendental Argument for God (TAG). It boils down to this:

 

"When we go to look at the different world views that atheists and theists have,I suggest we can prove the existence of God from the impossibility of the contrary.Thetranscendental proof for God's existence isthat without Him it is impossible to proveanything.The atheist world view is irrational and cannot consistently provide thepreconditions of intelligible experience, science, logic, or morality. The atheist world view cannot allow for laws of logic, the uniformity of nature, the ability for the mind to understand the world, and moral absolutes."

 

As I understand it, TAG rests on a claim that the atheist world view says that everything is made of matter or somehow is "material." So the atheist/naturalistic world view cannot "account for" things like the laws of logic, which are not material but are universal and absolute.

 

Later in the debate, Bahnsen says, "and I think this is close to a quote - "If there were no uniformity, science would be impossible. "Exactly, Dr. Stein! If there were no uniformity, science would be impossible. So on what basis in an atheist's universe is science possible, since in an atheist's universe there is no basis for assuming that there is going to be uniformity? For someone to say, " well, it's been that way in all the cases in the past that we know of and therefore very probably is going to be that way in the future" is to assume, because you're using probability, that the future is going to be like the past, that is to say, is to beg the very question that's being asked you."

 

I think this is stupid. Scientists don't claim to have proved scientific theories in a strong sense, for the very reason Bahnsen outlines.  Scientific theories establish themselves by their predictive power, plus perhaps simplicity. On the other hand, the Bible doesn't provide the material for any scientific theory at all.

 

For his part, Stein starts out by attacking what he summarizes as the eleven most popular proofs of God's existence. It would take too long to set forth all 11.

 

Stein did not begin with an attack on TAG as argument #12.  What he does say is not as lucid as one might wish - perhaps this is a verbatim transcript of what he said off the top of his head?  Basically he dismisses TAG as based on various misunderstandings about the nature of laws. He also talks about how the universe is not as law-like as Bahnsen thinks, and it's not necessary -- it's even problematic -- to posit a law-giving, planning creator of it.

 

Later on he adds this against TAG:

 

"He has stressed the laws of logic because he knows there is no explanation for the laws of logic that philosophers agree upon. This is a trap! I might have fallen into it, I don't know. [Yet] it's not relevant to his position. He doesn't have an answer to the laws of logic, either.To say that they reflect the thinking of God is to make a non-statement. First of all, hedoesn't know what the thinking of God is. All he knows is what has been by men to be what they thought the thinking of a god might have been many years ago - maybe, if we granted all the possible things in his favor."

 

Then Stein goes into the Argument from Evil.

 

I won't lengthen this by summarizing any more.  If anyone wants to put in the time to look at the debate and comment, I'll be interested in your comments!

 

 

[Dhyin]

TANG- transcendental argument for no god.

[Joshpantera]

I've outlined Joseph Campbell's work on the transcendent in the spirituality section. Ultimately transcendent eliminates the idea of a literal God. Absolutely unknown and unknowable prohibits giving God traits. No one can know anything about God because the TG represents the absolutely unknowable, as transcendent: 

 

Here is the formula used by Joseph Campbell for interpreting Mythic images and philosophies that are alluding to a metaphysical insight. 

Formula: 

the relationship of (a) to ( b )perfectly resembles that of © to (x), where (x) represents a quantity that is not only unknown but absolutely unknowable - which is to say, transcendent. 

Example: 

As many (a) proceed from one ( b ) so does the universe ( c ) from God (x) 

Joseph Campbell: 

"But the term (x), it must be insisted, remains absolutely unknown and unknowable. Oneness can no more be a quality of this (x) than can Love or Reason. Hence, as Kant declared, it is only by 'analogy' that we speak of Love or Reason, Unity, or even Being, as of 'God'. 

[♦ ficino ♦]

Here's someone's comment on the Bahnsen-Stein debate:

 

"The debate transcript I read was painful. Like a pair of six year olds arguing over policy responses to China’s central bank’s manipulative currency devaluations.

 

One thing I have never ever seen is any presuppositionalist give a *positive* account of how Yahweh “explains” something like the laws of logic. I certainly didn’t hear any of that here. What would such an account – the account the presupper demands all non-christians make – even look like? It surely cannot be a causal explanation, since causes only apply to events occurring in time and space. But neither could it be a deductive explanation, since one is quite capable of arriving at e.g. the Pythagorean Theorem in the absence of such a premise; and no one has yet show how to do something like make a formal derivation of the validity of modus ponens from the book of Leviticus.

 

This observation is consistent with my hypothesis that apologetics is more about generating “stumper questions for skeptics” than with generating any positive knowledge or uplift to the species generally."

 

Love it!  It was posted here:

 

http://jwwartick.com/2012/07/30/bahnsen-stein-debate/#comment-6588

[♦ ficino ♦]

I've outlined Joseph Campbell's work on the transcendent in the spirituality section. Ultimately transcendent eliminates the idea of a literal God. Absolutely unknown and unknowable prohibits giving God traits. No one can know anything about God because the TG represents the absolutely unknowable, as transcendent: 

 

Here is the formula used by Joseph Campbell for interpreting Mythic images and philosophies that are alluding to a metaphysical insight. 

 

Formula: 

 

the relationship of (a) to ( b )perfectly resembles that of © to (x), where (x) represents a quantity that is not only unknown but absolutely unknowable - which is to say, transcendent. 

 

Example: 

 

As many (a) proceed from one ( b ) so does the universe ( c ) from God (x) 

 

Joseph Campbell: 

 

"But the term (x), it must be insisted, remains absolutely unknown and unknowable. Oneness can no more be a quality of this (x) than can Love or Reason. Hence, as Kant declared, it is only by 'analogy' that we speak of Love or Reason, Unity, or even Being, as of 'God'. 

Hi Josh, I think the TAGers would say, "IF the unknowable transcendent God is also omnipotent, then He can make himself known if He wants.  And he does that in Jesus/the Bible."  They'd probably also say that religious language is analogical, as your Kant quotation suggests.  So we have proper knowledge but not exhaustive.

 

And blah blah.

 

Such a reply by a TAGer may not be sufficient to overturn Campbell's point, though.

 

I am thinking through other ways also in which TAG falls down.

[Joshpantera]

They'd be stopped at giving God a quality such as omnipotence. That's a concept, not transcendent of all concepts. They think transcendence lands in their benefit but a few steps beyond their apology lies a dead end.