Thanks, @mitchellmckain, I think you make some really good points. I agree with you about the dangers of “shift[ing] faith from God to the premises of the argument.” It is wrong to trust our intellect (in the form of arguments) over God Himself. Doing so would make ourselves the final authority rather than God, which a Christian will recognize as clearly wrongheaded. Colossians 2:8 comes to mind: “See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition…and not according to Christ.” God is a person, not the sterile conclusion of an argument! Biblical faith is related to, though not identical to, rational thought, as faith requires intellectual assent but not vice versa. By stating my original argument (which I am abbreviating TAG) in a vacuum due to space considerations, I don’t intend to suggest that it can or should exist on an island, nor do I think that the argument demands faith in itself above faith in God. Thank you for drawing out this point. I admit that I have faltered here in the past, and I am striving with God’s help not to continue to do so.
Where it seems that you and I differ is in the role that apologetics plays (or ought to play). You advocate for “apologetics as defense,” and I certainly agree that that is an essential function. But I would argue that “apologetics as offense” is important, too. (Van Til would add “apologetics as proof” as a third role, though I consider proof as a subset of defense in this context.) There is Biblical precedent for this concept. 2 Corinthians 10:5 says, “We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ.” And Ezekiel 33:1-9 speaks about warning others of coming (spiritual) danger. This is how I see apologetics as offense: warning the unbelieving of the dangerous spiritual path they are on by exposing the corruption of unbelief. Particularly for the scholarly among us who will respond to intellectual arguments, apologetics as offense can point out intellectual corruption in unbelief, and is thus a loving act of evangelism. Moreover, for an intellectually inclined audience, a good rational basis for faith is needed for their faith to be viable. Imagine encouraging someone to believe in Christianity while simultaneously telling them that it makes no sense! Of course, apologetics as offense must be done with gentleness and respect, but that is an issue of the manner in which it is communicated, not whether it is communicated at all.
So, why do I gravitate toward TAG, and the presuppositional apologetics program from which it came, for my “offense?” I’ll sketch a few reasons, but this could lead to a much longer discussion. TAG shows that rational tools like science and math are not religiously neutral. It seems to me that most people, both believing and unbelieving, default to the implicit assumption that rationality exists independently of God, and if we reason correctly with sufficient information, we could conclude all the correct things about reality, including theology, in an unbiased way using the tools of math and science (whether God exists or not, what He must be like, etc.). This assumption is wrong, and TAG reveals that. How could rationality exist independently of God? If it were independent of Him, it would be below, above, or equal to but separate from Him, each of which would lead to a contradiction of our ideas of God or of rational endeavor (if below Him, then rationality isn’t universal; if above Him, then God is not supreme; if equal to but separate from Him, then we are in a “parallel existence” situation akin to the one described in my first post). It’s my belief that TAG demonstrates a proper relationship between them, perhaps uniquely so within apologetic arguments.
Moreover, TAG embodies another principle that should accompany belief in God: our utter dependence on His provision. If God is as described, then what could we have apart from who He is, what He has created, and what He has given to us? As 1 Corinthians 4:7 says, “What do you have that you did not receive?” TAG demonstrates, in hindsight, that even our most foundational intellectual (and human) tools, the LRM premises, are not our inventions after all. Trying to use rationality but deny that it is from God is to rely on His nature to deny that He exists! As Van Til put it, it would be like a child sitting on his father’s lap to slap the father in the face; the child requires dependence on the father to insult him. TAG doesn’t force belief on anyone, nor is it a search for power, but it does make the listener aware of the consequences of unbelief, which is a Biblical goal of apologetics and evangelism. Sure, a sinful person could misuse TAG or any other philosophical argument for immoral gain, but those potential abuses are present everywhere and are not part of the argument itself.
TAG is not the only apologetic or evangelistic approach that can be effective, but for these reasons I am finding it to be an important tool in the evangelistic toolbox, particularly to a rationally inclined audience. TAG forces listeners to reckon with the implications of what they use every day and most likely take for granted (the LRM premises). I see this as a great strength of the argument (not to mention that it has strengthened the Christian faith of many who already had faith, and it can be presented in plain language, not requiring advanced degrees in a dozen subjects to be understood).
I didn’t initially give all of these disclaimers, philosophical thoughts, larger framework and purposes, etc. since my focus was the argument itself, though I can see how their absence can lead to unintended inferences. Hopefully, the few paragraphs of TAG would not be the entirety of a person’s evangelistic interaction, but rather a tool in a larger evangelistic endeavor.
Now, to your thoughts on the argument itself. First, I would say that it is self-consistent rather than circular. It utilizes the 4 elements that all arguments include, implicitly if not explicitly: definitions, premises, steps of reasoning, and a conclusion. I tried to make these explicit for clarity. TAG (or my summary of it) happens to be brief enough that one can still see the beginning from the end, but its logical structure is no different from a longer argument where the connection between beginning and end isn’t so apparent. Universal morality is assumed and its personal nature is argued for as part of the steps of reasoning, but the conclusion makes a different statement, namely that a God meeting the definition exists (housing all of the LRM premises). That conclusion is not a premise – it’s more than just changing the terminology from “morality” to “God” – so the argument is not circular. There is, however, a form of circularity present in TAG: the conclusion is “implicit” in the definitions and premises. All logical arguments are circular in that way, though, so I do not see it as a weakness of the argument – just a weakness (inevitable limitation) of human intellect.
To your second paragraph, I would have similar comments as in my reply to gavin_kemp on 1/6/22. Your description of how morality is learned and/or evaluated is not what the moral standard in TAG is about. What matters for TAG is whether or not a person accepts the premise of the existence of a universal moral standard (I think that virtually everybody does, even most who deny it, but defending that premise of TAG isn’t my point here). Further, the supposedly alternative process you describe assumes “natural law” and “communal wellbeing,” which are themselves assumptions about universal standards of rationality and morality just like TAG (natural law would be one such element of rationality, and communal wellbeing a possible moral standard), so I don’t see this viewpoint as escaping the original argument anyway. This, too, is a reason that I see TAG as powerful: it is difficult, if not impossible, to give a description of any earthly phenomena without the use of the LRM premises, so attempts to circumvent it usually fall into it.
I hope this serves to clarify and expound on my position. Again, thanks for your reply.