Bill Snedden

And therein lies the huge rub...

As David said in the post wherein his formalization is found: "exactly which X and why?" remains a HUGE problem for proponents of TAG. Of course, it's also a rather large problem for proponents of foundationalist epistemologies in general (of which TAG is only one example).

But it really doesn't prove it. "God" is merely a more emotionally satisfying brute fact than "it just does." However, it's certainly no more rational and it runs afoul of Ockham's razor to boot.

Regards,

Bill Snedden

Bilbo

CX asks:

---------------------------------------------------
To reiterate a question from the OP, does anyone know where I can find a coherent statement of the TAG?
---------------------------------------------------

I've often been asked this by interested christians and atheists, so I'll take this opportunity to toss in a few recommendations. For starters though, I should confess that I'm not too sure what you mean by "coherance" here; trivially consistent formulations of a TA can easily be made available. If however, its the *substance* of the deduction you're interested in (and not merely the proper numbering of sentences), then here are a few roadmarkers you (and others interested) might want to keep you eyes peeled for.

To start with; for those new to the subject, a good introduction to the idea of a transcendental argument can be found in the Encyclopedia of Philosophy (ed. Paul Edwards).

The secondary literature on Kant can often prove useful as well, for example: "Kant's Transcendental Idealism: An Interpretation and Defence" by Henry Allison (Yale, 1986) .

For a more contemporary smattering of views, check out the anthology by Robert Stern - Transcendental Arguments: Problems & Prospects (Oxford, 1999).

Specifically *christian* attempts at transcendental argumentation originate with the 20th century Dutch Calvinists; Herman Dooyeweerd, and Cornelius Van Til. Dooyeweerd's 'Roots of Western Culture' as well as the first volume of his magnum opus 'A New Critique of Theoretical Thought', offer his negative assessment regarding the relation between non-theistic thinking and some of the perennial problems of philosophy.

Transcendental concerns pervade virtually the entirety of Van Til's published oeuvre, and most attempts at a TAG one finds on the internet take their inspiration directly from his work. Unfortunately though, most of that work was written in the form of classroom syllabi, which means that it can take a fair bit of hermeneutic muscle to distill the essence of his thinking from the opaque idealist prose that was fashionable during his day. That being said, his best (and most perspicuous) works are:

1) Christian Apologetics
2) A Survey of Christian Epistemology
3) A Christian Theory of Knowledge
4) Introduction to Systematic Theology.

Some of these titles are now out of print, but Van Til's thinking has been popularized (if indeed "popular" is the appropriate term, granting Thomas Metcalf's earlier caveat) by his students: John Frame and Greg Bahnsen.

Both men have published books specifically aimed at interpreting and making more palatable their teacher's thoughts on apologetics and transcendental issues. The Bahnsen reader (Van Til's Apologetic: Readings and Analysis, P&R Press, 1998) is especially helpful for the beginner. The book by John Frame (Cornelius Van Til: An Analysis of His Thought, P&R Press, 1995) is a critical, albeit sympathetic analysis of the main themes of Van Til's apologetic work.

The best treatment of christian TAs, in a contemporary "analytic" (or quasi-analytic) vein is probably Stephen E. Parrish's: God and Necessity (University Press of America, 1997). He even devotes a chapter to Brute Fact theories of modality, as they pertain to theistic arguments (for those who find that route easy and promising). While the arguments are informal, the reasoning is fairly rigorous, at least in comparison to most other contemporary presentations of philosophical theology.


Whether any of this material pertaining to christian TAs meets your personal needs CX, will depend on just what those are. The worth of Van Til's thinking for christians and theology is, in my opinion, very great; easily on par with anything given us by Augustine, Thomas, or Calvin. I believe his work and insights deserve a deep look by every serious christian thinker. Its apologetic worth as an *argument*, or even more loosely; an *argumentative strategy* (particularily in the context of anglo-american philosophy of religion) is a more controversial matter, since some of its central theses would be regarded as inchoate by today's requirements, and recieve nothing like the detailed attention of more traditional apologetic arguments. If that doesn't preclude their worth entirely, then I believe the above recommendations will reward study.

Regards,

Bilbo.