jwright82
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
I've been thinking about an angle to best explain and discuss how transcendental arguments (methodologicaly) function in apologetics. As well as the devastating critiques they give that sets them apart from other arguments. Or what makes them unique in the apologetical tool bag for the Christian?
In the early twentieth century a somewhat new criticism was leveled at things as being meaningless or not. Before you would describe a position or idea as either true or false but at least it communicated meaningful sentences and ideas. Not so much now. Now it is seen as being even worse than false because you're not even making sense. Its like talking gibberish it can't even be false because to be false you have to make sense in the first place.
So the heart of the transcendental method is in showing that the unbelieving WV is neither true or false because its meaningless (worse than false). Its "true", no pun intended, that their WV is false but its worse than false because it's meaningless. Positively reality is meaningful only because of the Christian WV is true. Because only within the Christian WV can anything be true or false to begin with. This is an aspect of the argument from predication. Only within a Christian WV can you meaningfully say that something is true or false. The unbelieving WV can't even do that.
This was Van Til's point about how even the arguments against the faith prove the faith because only within the Christian WV do arguments make sense. This explains why unbelievers can and do make sense all the time, they're using borrowed capital.
So I think when we view the transcendental method as only showing the unbelieving WV as false and the Christian WV as true, we rob it of its deepest aspect. We show the unbelieving WV to be worse than false because its meaningless ultimately. As well we show the Christian WV to be more than true because its the only WV that gives meaning to reality, hence our ability of predication.
Now it could be objected that some WV's admit upfront that life and reality are meaningless but in order for that statement to make sense predication must be possible. But only in a Christian WV is predication possible hence can one meaningfully say that.
Keep in mind I'm not laying out an argument but a method of argumentation, there's a difference. Nor am I saying other methods are wrong. I'm only pointing out the unique aspect of the transcedental method that I think sets it apart as a useful tool. I also understand I'm throwing around meaningful and meaningless in loose ways but used in slightly different senses, so I'll take that criticism if someone points it out. I hope this sparks good discussion and debate but most of all is beneficial to at least someone. If anything I said is confusing please point it out to me and I'll do my best to explain better.
In the early twentieth century a somewhat new criticism was leveled at things as being meaningless or not. Before you would describe a position or idea as either true or false but at least it communicated meaningful sentences and ideas. Not so much now. Now it is seen as being even worse than false because you're not even making sense. Its like talking gibberish it can't even be false because to be false you have to make sense in the first place.
So the heart of the transcendental method is in showing that the unbelieving WV is neither true or false because its meaningless (worse than false). Its "true", no pun intended, that their WV is false but its worse than false because it's meaningless. Positively reality is meaningful only because of the Christian WV is true. Because only within the Christian WV can anything be true or false to begin with. This is an aspect of the argument from predication. Only within a Christian WV can you meaningfully say that something is true or false. The unbelieving WV can't even do that.
This was Van Til's point about how even the arguments against the faith prove the faith because only within the Christian WV do arguments make sense. This explains why unbelievers can and do make sense all the time, they're using borrowed capital.
So I think when we view the transcendental method as only showing the unbelieving WV as false and the Christian WV as true, we rob it of its deepest aspect. We show the unbelieving WV to be worse than false because its meaningless ultimately. As well we show the Christian WV to be more than true because its the only WV that gives meaning to reality, hence our ability of predication.
Now it could be objected that some WV's admit upfront that life and reality are meaningless but in order for that statement to make sense predication must be possible. But only in a Christian WV is predication possible hence can one meaningfully say that.
Keep in mind I'm not laying out an argument but a method of argumentation, there's a difference. Nor am I saying other methods are wrong. I'm only pointing out the unique aspect of the transcedental method that I think sets it apart as a useful tool. I also understand I'm throwing around meaningful and meaningless in loose ways but used in slightly different senses, so I'll take that criticism if someone points it out. I hope this sparks good discussion and debate but most of all is beneficial to at least someone. If anything I said is confusing please point it out to me and I'll do my best to explain better.