TAG as an argument

[EvoUK]

What is everyones opinion of the TAG argument? I still see some theists swearing by it- yet I never worked out the big deal. Once you assume that your worldview is correct- you note that other worldviews are in conflict with yours, so they must therefore be wrong.

Of course I can expend on this shortly- however, I'm interested in your thoughts.

[EvoUK]

TAG, as employed by every TAGist I've seen, is a debate tactic more than any true epistemology. It doesn't actually ground anyone's faith - it's something adopted after an emotional commitment is made to Christianity, and TAG seems simply a way for some Christians to pretend that they have an impervious logical argument to shroud their impervious emotional commitment.

1. "We all have our presuppositions," so TAG gets to have it's presupposition ("The Bible is the true word of God...or whatever). The trick to this, used by every Presuppositionalist I've seen, is to attach to this claim a completely arbitrary definition and constriction of the meaning of "Presupposition." The TAGist often conflates presuppositions with axioms, and arbitrarily asserts that presuppositions can not be challenged - only the arguments built upon the presupposition. Which is, of course, utter, complete, self-evident rubbish. As if simply labeling an assertion "my presupposition" makes it impervious to inquiry, and no one can test it for soundness.

2. Impossibility of the Contrary. The TAGist holds on to this like a pit-bull. And he does this simply by ignoring all the "contraries" offered to him. Or, at best, dismissing them simply because they don't mimic the spurious comfort of having "magic" to fill in every little hole of epistemological discomfort.

Given that the very use of TAG gives it's blessing to the use of TAG-like presuppositions, the opportunities for offering "the contrary" in the form of similarly unfounded and self-confirming theories are boundless. Some cheeky (and more serious) versions have been offered here. But the TAGist ignores them simply because, it seems, they aren't his theory.

3. "TAG must be critiqued "internally." This is really what it comes down to.
The Big Trick. Every TAGist I've seen has absolutely demanded that TAG can "only be critiqued internally." Which is, of course, more utterly arbitrary, self-serving rubbish. However, this TAGist approach sets up this impervious dilemma for his opponent:

You must critique the TAG internally, from it's world view.
TAG presupposes the Bible is the true word of God.

So, to "critique" the TAG, you automatically submit to the TAG being correct. For if you actually point out some deficiency in the Bible as a critique of TAG, then the TAGist asserts you have clearly not assumed the TAG internal worldview - that it is the true word of God. Any time you arrive at a conclusion that does not affirm the Bible is the true word of God, you automatically reveal you have not adopted the TAGist's presupposition of Biblical truth, and thus you can not be actually critiquing it internally. You are instead accused of "importing" from your own epistemology, which you have "failed to establish."

Thus: the TAG must be critiqued internally. But to actually critique it shows you are not critiquing it internally. It's designed as an impossible request to fulfill, and thus it's a completely dishonest, not to mention absurd, approach. And it leads to the absurdity of page after page of deflection by the TAGist.

~Prof

[Seasanctuary]

TAG is retarded.

Your analysis is completely correct that it is nothing more than assuming some essential aspects of the Christian worldview, then -- shock of all shocks -- showing that these aspects conflict with the worldviews of Atheists.

A specific example:

Logic can only come from Yahweh (which we know because Yahweh is the basis for everything.)
Atheists don't believe in Yahweh, but they do believe in logic.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Therefore Atheists should be consistant by either abandoning their belief in logic or accepting Jesus.

[C. D. Ward]

Preface all of this with "IMHO"...

TAG is really not an argument, but actually a polemic. The thought process behind it (taken from Van Til's writings) seems to me rather similar to that Luther went through before writing "On the Jews and Their Lies":

1) Luther apparently had a great sympathy for the Jewish people early in his life. However, he expected them to hear the "good news" and convert. When they did not, he became impatient and angry, assuming it must be something about them, and not the "good news" itself and was led to write his infamous polemic against them.

2) Van Til (and the Reformed movement and, indeed, Calvinism in general) hold an a priori belief that the evidence for God's existence is clear and undeniable, therefore any who claim failure to recognize it are either lying or deceiving themselves. IOW, their failure to convert to Christianity (the Calvinist version, natch :wink:) is the result of something about them, not the "good news" itself. Van Til's polemic followed.

Add to this the fact that TAG is of absolutely no use as an argument against an opponent who fails to accept this premise (i.e., anyone against whom such an argument could conceivably be used) and the further fact that Van Til specifically denied that apologetics should be used to such an end (convincing unbelievers) and you have a pretty clear picture. Van Til came to see that traditional apologetics was not having the desired end (convincing unbelievers) and instead of looking to the arguments, blamed the unbelievers for their unbelief, and determined to abandon the traditional apologetic methods in favor of a polemic that would serve to strengthen believer's resolve despite their apologetic failures by placing all the blame for those failures squarely on the shoulders of the target audience.

In a nutshell, TAG reduces to: screw 'em; we're right and they're evil. Nyah.

[flipper]

Yeah, TAG has always seemed a bit like a semantical theological version of Zeno's Paradox to me (appreciating the clear differences in intent of each). They both have a superficial attractiveness as arguments but neither stands up to close scrutiny. And I've got a box filled with skewered tortoises to prove it.

[Ursus maritimus]

You should have posted this in the Philosophy or Apologetics forum, EvoUK. Then maybe someone would have tried to defend it. It usually turns out to be a lot of fun when someone actually tries to use the TAG. :wink:

[EvoUK]

There are enough threads about it in apologetics- do a search for them!

Interestingly enough, you'll see the same format as my 2nd post replayed again and again...

[Seasanctuary]

Good analysis, C.D. Ward. I feel similarly, except I've been calling it "a rhetoric" rather than "a polemic." ...but definitely as opposed to "an argument."

[Archimedes]

What is everyones opinion of the TAG argument? I still see some theists swearing by it- yet I never worked out the big deal. Once you assume that your worldview is correct- you note that other worldviews are in conflict with yours, so they must therefore be wrong.
To be exact, that's not the transcendental argument itself, but rather a reason why the argument is bogus. The apologist employing TAG never explicitly acknowledges that he's only objection is the conflict between his presuppositions and those of his opponent. His intent is to prove the other guy's presuppositions internally inconsistent, and he mistakenly believes he can do this because he inadvertendly imports his own unspoken premises to the argument.

1. "We all have our presuppositions," so TAG gets to have it's presupposition ("The Bible is the true word of God...or whatever). The trick to this, used by every Presuppositionalist I've seen, is to attach to this claim a completely arbitrary definition and constriction of the meaning of "Presupposition." The TAGist often conflates presuppositions with axioms, and arbitrarily asserts that presuppositions can not be challenged - only the arguments built upon the presupposition. Which is, of course, utter, complete, self-evident rubbish. As if simply labeling an assertion "my presupposition" makes it impervious to inquiry, and no one can test it for soundness.
I somewhat disagree with this objection. TAG makes a distinction between at least two categories of presuppositions, namely transcendent and regular ones. The transcendent presupposions are those assumption that are not arbitrary because they provide a necessary basis for all world views. Any world view that contradicts or lacks these presuppositions is either incoherent or incomplete.

The idea that all other presuppositions are arbitrary is also in my opinion permissible in an argument, as long as these rules apply equally to both sides. This is what I personally see as the biggest flaw in TAG as I've seen it used: after the apologist has asserted that his presuppositions are OK just because he says so (and must be "critiqued internally"), he completely turns his coat when it comes to the atheists' (or anyone else's) presuppositions. Apparently the atheist is not allowed to have assumptions like "the universe just exists" in his worldview because they fail to meet some undefined standard that the Biblical worldview can presumably ignore.

2. Impossibility of the Contrary. The TAGist holds on to this like a pit-bull. And he does this simply by ignoring all the "contraries" offered to him. Or, at best, dismissing them simply because they don't mimic the spurious comfort of having "magic" to fill in every little hole of epistemological discomfort.
Indeed. I've seen some internet apologists tout that not only does TAG prove that God exists, it proves that the Christian God and in particular the protestant Christian God exists. And how do they do this? By arbitrarily applying different standards of criticism to other worldviews than their own.

3. "TAG must be critiqued "internally." This is really what it comes down to.
The Big Trick. Every TAGist I've seen has absolutely demanded that TAG can "only be critiqued internally." Which is, of course, more utterly arbitrary, self-serving rubbish. However, this TAGist approach sets up this impervious dilemma for his opponent:

You must critique the TAG internally, from it's world view.
TAG presupposes the Bible is the true word of God.
I think that TAG is correct about this, that some Christian worldviews are internally consistent. Calvinism comes to mind. The real failure of the Transcendental Argument is that its "internal" criticism of other world views is not in fact internal, it's achieved by smuggling premises from the Christian worldview. And then there is of course this silly argument that it's the opponent who's doing it... so when the opponent makes a logical argument, he's supposedly borrowing logic from the Christian worldview, when it's in fact the presuppositionalist apologists' own unspoken premise that logic can only have basis in a Christian world view.

All in all, I agree with the sentiment in this thread. The fact that a lot of Christians and theists regard TAG as a good argument is a better proof against the existence of God than TAG is for God; anyone who gives credit to such thinly veiled rhetorical nonsense to defend his views must be scraping the bottom of the barrel.

[Jaltus]

Archimedes,

If you are a theist, you cannot post in this area. If you are not a theist, then carry on. I cannot tell what you are because you have not chosen a faith-icon.

[Ursus maritimus]

Ha! I got my wish (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=37546)! I don't know if this is a typical example of TAG (it seems to have started off as word-salad as opposed to degenerating over the course of several posts), but it does seem to have the archetypical features.

[EvoUK]

Oh dear- what a silly thread. TAG at it's finest. The thread will go on ad infinitum because the original poster won't accept that merely asserting a premise and then treating it as a given doesn't work in debate. At least not unless you're preaching to the choir.

"God exists because I say so, and because I also say that god is logic, logic must therefore exist and any worldview which doesn't include my god (which I say creates logic), must therefore be incoherent"

:duh:

[C. D. Ward]

Oh dear- what a silly thread. TAG at it's finest.
And note that it has ended up like so many of the other ones. Assertions made, assertions rebutted. The same assertions made again, and again rebutted. Another round of the same assertions made yet again, and yet again rebutted. The original poster then abandons the thread, no doubt muttering about "foolish, blind atheists..."

:duh: indeed...