Presuppositional Apologetics: an argument that's not an argument

At the beginning of this year I posted about presuppositional apologetics (PA). I first encountered this particular argument for the existence of God after a search for information about the transcendental proof.

Justin Brierley's Unbelievable? radio programme dealt with presuppositional apologetics in July 2010 with a debate/discussion between presuppositionalist Sye Ten Bruggencate and atheist Paul Baird — a programme that provoked a forum discussion exceeding 1000 posts and confirmed that as an apologetic method PA is a dismal failure.

Today's Unbelievable? — billed as round two — again featured Sye and Paul, but on this occasion was more about PA rather than just Sye actually doing it (although inevitably it included some of that as well).

Streaming audio of the show is available here:
http://www.premierradio.org.uk/listen/ondemand.aspx?mediaid={C2CD1A87-7A50-498E-B5F5-773F4EE37E46}

Or you can download the mp3 here:
http://media.premier.org.uk/unbelievable/6edf007c-73a9-47c9-bbbd-c9e9a97a4113.mp3

Listening to the show, and to Sye doing his schtick, I felt some sympathy for Justin as he sided with Paul in trying to persuade Sye to explain how he gets from the generic God (resulting from Sye's transcendental argument) to the God of Christianity.

Of course Sye didn't explain any such thing, claiming that the Christian God is not a culmination but a necessary presupposition to his argument. The discussion clearly demonstrated why presuppositional apologetics doesn't work. PA is never going to persuade anyone that it's correct, because it simply presupposes that it's correct. Anyone who accepts Sye's argument as valid isn't being persuaded of the truth of Christianity, they are simply accepting it a priori as true. If the argument requires at its very beginning the existence of the specifically Christian God, it's hardly surprising that it expends no effort in trying to prove something it takes as a given.

Since his first encounter with Sye, Paul has spent considerable time and effort researching PA, and you can hear his own account of the "rematch" on the first episode of Skepticule Extra, available here:

http://www.skepticule.co.uk/2011/03/skepextra-001-20110313.html

The only people who find PA convincing are those who already think it's a good argument. That's why PA is doomed.

"On Being" a scornful atheist on the Today Programme

Peter Atkins has a new book out. On Being is apparently a rallying cry for the virtues and reliability of science in a solely materialist, naturalistic universe. Professor Atkins was on the BBC Radio 4 Today Programme yesterday morning, along with philosopher Mary Midgley. The 6'34" streaming audio clip is available here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9427000/9427512.stm

Does science have all the answers we need to the big questions of life, like why are we here and where did we come from?

Oxford scientist Prof Peter Atkins and philosopher Mary Midgley discuss whether there is anything more than facts, facts and more facts.

There's an accompanying article by Tom Colls on the BBC website:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9410000/9410486.stm

I dislike the term "militant atheist" because as applied to people like Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens it degrades the meaning of "militant", but I think "scornful atheist" or "disdainful atheist" could accurately describe Peter Atkins. He's very clear about his naturalistic approach to the whole of existence and doesn't moderate his language when speaking to those who have a more transcendental take on things. Some may see his approach as lacking in nuance, though I suspect he would maintain nuance on these matters is superfluous.

Stephen Law also heard the Today clip, and posted about it on his blog:

Funnily enough I had exactly this debate with Atkins a couple of weeks ago in Oxford over about 2hrs (part of THINK week). Dawkins sat right in front of me and chipped in too. I believe there will be some sort of recording available shortly...

I look forward to hearing that recording.

Burnee links for Thursday

Stephen Law: Steven Pool exchange with myself
Stephen Law responds to a frivolous and lazy review.

WTF Bible Stories: Rape, Marriage, and Circumcision | Godless Girl
A heartwarming story from Genesis.

Charges initiated against Pope for crimes against humanity - The Irish Times - Wed, Feb 23, 2011
Yeah, go for it. At the very least the Vatican must be made to realise that these things cannot be swept under the carpet.

God and Disaster - A C Grayling - RichardDawkins.net - RichardDawkins.net
In the light of the Japan earthquake, A. C. Grayling channels Epicurus.

It does no work because it purportedly does all work - Butterflies and Wheels
This is so true. I've been aware of this friendly debate going on between people I admire, and made a note to catch up on it. Ophelia Benson's summary in this post makes me want to read the whole thing forthwith.

Why Plantinga didn’t solve the problem of evil: the short version | The Uncredible Hallq
I've not read Plantinga on evil — my encounter with his Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism was enough to put me off. But I'm glad someone is calling him to account. That someone is Chris Hallquist, and his previous post on William Lane Craig is worth reading too:
William Lane Craig is a charlatan | The Uncredible Hallq

Mysterious arguments for a tortured God

Dembski & Licona's Evidence for God has been woefully disappointing so far, but with Chapter 6 David Wood shows he's made of more substantial stuff. Although "Responding to the Argument from Evil — Three Approaches for the Theist" appears from the title to be an exercise in theodicy, Wood gets in several shots from various perspectives.

The argument from evil is that the existence of suffering in the world is inconsistent with the existence of an omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent God. Wood's three approaches are firstly that there are problems with the argument itself; attempts can be made to explain suffering; and arguments can be made for theism that outweigh arguments against it.

One of the problems with the argument from evil, Wood claims, is that it is itself inconsistent. He plays the mysterious ways card, but says this is OK because atheists do the same when they say it's OK that we don't know how abiogenesis happened. (He also, by the bye, lumps this in with an obviously false claim that atheists have no explanation for the complexity of life.)

Another problem Wood identifies is that of ambiguity. Though straying from his main thesis, a point he makes is that "faith" is not belief without evidence — it's more akin to trust. Methinks he is squirming here. He goes on to defining "good", claiming that the atheist definition of good is "maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain". Here's another apologist who ought to read Sam Harris.

Next Wood points out that the argument from evil contains unproven assumptions, amongst which is the assumption that if God has reasons for allowing evil in the world, we assume we would be aware of those reasons. But by saying we might not be aware of those reasons, he's just playing the mysterious ways card again. And in the next paragraph he delivers his double whammy of claiming that these are only some of the problems with the argument from evil, while refraining from listing the others (I wonder why), and that "theists are under no obligation to explain suffering".

Then comes a paragraph about the Christian doctrine that "humanity is in a state of rebellion against God." Unfortunately for his refutation this is a circular argument — and typical of theodicy. Faced with certain facts about the world, theologians are obliged to torture their God into some very strange shapes in order to reconcile him with a multitude of inconsistencies. And if it doesn't ultimately work, there's always the mysterious ways card secreted up a sleeve. Wood proposes free will as one such reconciliation, but there's a good deal of doubt that free will actually exists in the terms used by theologians, and therefore as theodicy it won't hold up. It's interesting to note that all of Wood's arguments here could equally be used in support of Stephen Law's "Evil God".

And just in case we aren't convinced by Wood's refutations thus far, he offers some additional, separate arguments for theism to load the scales of conviction. These, however, look as if he was concerned to make up his word-count, being the argument from design, the cosmological argument and the argument from morality. Given the content of previous chapters, this seems a mite redundant.

So despite a strong beginning, Wood's three approaches ultimately fizzle.

---

It turns out (yet again) that 4truth.net has a version of this essay. (Did Dembski and Licona do any editing for this book, or did they just pick a whole lot of apologetics articles off a single website?)

Skeptical Activism panel at TAM London 2010

Before I get around to posting about the individual talks and events at February's QEDcon in Manchester, I should complete my posts about TAM London 2010. My previous post on this subject took us to the afternoon of the first day, and next up is the panel discussion on Skeptical Activism. This was chaired by Tracey Brown of Sense About Science; the other panelists were former Liberal Democrat MP Dr Evan Harris, legal blogger David Allen Green (aka Jack of Kent) and science writer Simon Singh.

Each delivered a five-minute talk that couldn't be much more than an introduction, and then the panel discussion began, with Tracey Brown fielding questions from the floor. The emphasis of the discussion was that activism is all very well, but skeptical activism must be backed up by evidence. Blogs, for instance, are well suited to such an approach, with the ability to link directly to the evidence supporting what the the blogger is saying.



It was an interesting panel without much structure; Tracey Brown did a good job moderating, and the whole thing clearly gave attendees much to think on.

New godless podcast: Skepticule Extra

I'm pleased to announce the launch of a new godless podcast featuring Paul Baird, Paul Thompson (aka Sinbad) and myself, which is going by the informal title of The Three Pauls Show for obvious reasons. Our current intention is to release a half-hour show every two weeks, and for the time being episodes will appear in the Skepticule RSS feed under the title Skepticule Extra — so it's already available in iTunes.

Find it here:

http://www.skepticule.co.uk/

or in iTunes here:

http://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?id=330565544

Give it a listen, and send us your feedback by commenting on the shownotes blog, or by email to: feedback@skepticule.co.uk

Burnee links for Sunday

A One Man Ode to Joy « Choice in Dying

Yet in what sense is theology an “intellectual discipline”? The phrasing is significant, for Polkinghorne is past master at the art of misdirection. Astrology, for instance, or alchemy, could justly be called intellectual disciplines. Anything with an esoteric vocabulary, and transformation rules for using that vocabulary in well-formed expressions, is an intellectual discipline; and until someone asks whether the words actually refer to anything that can confirm the truth, or establish the falsity, of those expressions, it can seem as though participants in the language game are actually talking about important matters, when, in fact, the whole activity might be entirely self-contained, a very complex, intellectual jeu d’esprit in which many enjoyable hours may be spent. Religion is, in my view, such a language, and the question whether it can have any relationship to an intellectual discipline which actually confirms or disconfirms propositions on the basis of things external to the manipulation of expressions within the discipline is the point at issue.

Eric MacDonald deconstructs the accommodationist theology of Templeton-prize-winner Sir John Polkinghorne.

Why are atheists so angry? - Butterflies and Wheels
Ophelia Benson is tired of sanctimonious nagging.

Daylight Atheism > Stepping Across the Is-Ought Gap
Catching up with Ebonmuse I'm pleased to see he agrees with Sam Harris.

Daylight Atheism > Curiosity as a Purpose of Life
More from Ebonmuse; I particularly enjoyed "the universe is like a wiki...."

Another Christian voice against the Christian Legal Centre | HumanistLife
More confirmation that Eunice and Owen Johns are simply wrong.

Ban the Blame | HumanistLife
Bob Churchill on the BHA's Census Campaign and those shockingly offensive ads.