Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

The Presuppers

Rate this topic


ctrl y

Recommended Posts

Objectivism, as I understand it, is derived from the three axioms of identity, consciousness, and existence. It defends these axioms through retortion, i.e. the undermining of an opponent's position by noting that their position relies upon what they are trying to refute. Objectivism does not "prove" the axioms, it "verifies" them by noting that time and again we cannot construct a position that does not assume them.

There is a school of Christian apologetics, known as presuppositionalism, that attempts to defend the existence of God in a similar manner. Briefly put, the argument goes:

1) Everybody has to assume logic is true.

2) You have to believe in God to believe in logic.

3) So, everybody assumes the existence of God.

The second premise probably strikes you as odd. How do they know that God must be assumed for logic to function? Well, it turns out that just as objectivism verifies its axioms through the defeating of opponents, the presuppers verify their second premise through the (percieved) refutation of opposing viewpoints. This is done by attempting to point out contradictions within their opponents' worldviews. Their point is, we can't build a noncontradictory system constructed on logic while simultanteously denying logic by denying God. This is a form of retortion.

Whether or not presuppositionalism is valid is beside the point (I don't think it is). What I'm trying to figure out is, how do we know the objectivist method of verification is any more solid than that of the presuppers? Are the presuppers just evading? What's going on?

Edited by ctrl y
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Pointing to reality" is not specific enough, because all sorts of people point to reality, but then describe it incorrectly. I see spin-doctors do it on TV every day. Step one to proving that existence exists is to understand what is meant by the terms. So, step one is forming the concept "existence".

Ctrl_Y,

From what you say, the "pre-supposers" are depending on the premise "You have to believe in God to believe in logic".

First, one has to "map" their words to reality. What do they mean by these terms they use? When people use English words to mean something other than what I mean, they might as well be speaking a foreign language. So, clarify the concepts first. Perhaps by "God" they mean the thing I term "numbers", maybe by "believe in" they mean the activity I call "grasp", maybe by "logic" they mean the activity I call "addition". Once I know that, I might agree with them, because one has to grasp numbers, to grasp addition.

So, the first step would be to ask: when you say God, what referents in reality are you referring to? And the same for "logic". Perhaps also for "believe in". You ask the person to point to the facts of reality that each of his concepts stands for. Then, go from there.

That is the way one would figure out if what their second premise holds water (which is a term I use for "is true").

Other than that one premise, the rest of the syllogism is trivial.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ctrl y,

The Presupposationalist argument, as you report it, is not a form a retortion (Which is not to imply that the Objectivist argument is primarly one either). Essentially, all their argument is doing is conflating "logic" and "god" as if they're the same object, waiting for their opponent to embrace logic and deny god, and then accusing him of a contradiction.

It is a completely baseless claim to say that logic is the same thing as god. Perhaps they mean that a "belief in logic" is just as unprovable as a belief in god, but if so, all they're doing is dressing up the typical theistic argument that the atheist cannot prove that their claim of god's existence is not true. Which, of course, he can.

While the burdens of proof for both the claim that god exists and that logic exists both lie with their claimants, unlike the assertion that god exists, the assertion that logic exists is supported by evidence and can be easily demonstrated. In fact, I just did it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any statement of knowledge depends on and implicitly presupposes the three axioms. The method of defending this position is to look at any item of knowledge one cares to consider and show that it assumes the three axioms. The method of responding to an objection to this position, after the objector has already seen the defense in action, is to apply the defense of this position to the objection at hand: to show how every statement of knowledge, including the objection itself, depends on and implicitly presupposes the three axioms. You see, then, that the primary defense of the Objectivist position in actually straightforward, and it is only after the position has actually been defended that retortion can be applied.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is incorrect to say that Objectivism is "derived" from the axioms. What is implicit in such a statement is Rationalism which is not consistent with Objectivism.

The axioms are implicit in *any* claim to knowledge. To have knowledge means that one has knowledge of *something* (identity), that something *exists* to have knowledge of (existence exists), and that one is *conscious* of something (consciousness is conscious). As an exercise, try making any claim to (or refutation of) knowledge without presupposing any one of these three axioms--you wouldn't be able to utter a single word without presupposing all three axioms, even the ridiculous claim that logic presupposes the existence of god.

As such, the axioms are the *foundation* for any and all claims to (or refutations of) knowledge. This is something very different from making an arbitrary assertion such as "logic presupposes the existence of god." On the contrary, what logic presupposes are the three axioms, and the three axioms in no way presuppose the existence of god (or of any other supernatural entity).

Edited by RichardParker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Pointing to reality" is not specific enough, because all sorts of people point to reality, but then describe it incorrectly. I see spin-doctors do it on TV every day. Step one to proving that existence exists is to understand what is meant by the terms. So, step one is forming the concept "existence".

Ctrl_Y,

From what you say, the "pre-supposers" are depending on the premise "You have to believe in God to believe in logic".

First, one has to "map" their words to reality. What do they mean by these terms they use? When people use English words to mean something other than what I mean, they might as well be speaking a foreign language. So, clarify the concepts first. Perhaps by "God" they mean the thing I term "numbers", maybe by "believe in" they mean the activity I call "grasp", maybe by "logic" they mean the activity I call "addition". Once I know that, I might agree with them, because one has to grasp numbers, to grasp addition.

So, the first step would be to ask: when you say God, what referents in reality are you referring to? And the same for "logic". Perhaps also for "believe in". You ask the person to point to the facts of reality that each of his concepts stands for. Then, go from there.

That is the way one would figure out if what their second premise holds water (which is a term I use for "is true").

Other than that one premise, the rest of the syllogism is trivial.

That is an excellent response. I think your argument that the concept of God has no referents to reality is strong. I understand the distinction between the methodologies much better now.

By "God," they usually mean the standard Christian deity: trinity, superpowers, and all, though there are other variations. Minimally, they would say that God is the "ground of being" or "God is being itself" meaning that God = the abstraction called "being". Of course, that's about as silly as saying, for example, "God is yellowness itself".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a school of Christian apologetics, known as presuppositionalism, that attempts to defend the existence of God in a similar manner. Briefly put, the argument goes:

1) Everybody has to assume logic is true.

2) You have to believe in God to believe in logic.

3) So, everybody assumes the existence of God.

Items 2 is utter balderdash. There are logical atheists. Unless one assumes God is Being or Existence, 3 is also nonsense.

The notion that God is Being has a long history. It goes back at least as far as the Hebrews. When Moses talked to the Being in the Burning Bush and asked it what it was/is , it replied "I am that I am" (Ehyeh ahnee Ehyeh). The Hebrew proper name for God is transliterated Yaweh which is precisely the third person of the verb "to be". Yaweh = he or it Is.

Spinoza identified God with Existence, so the idea may be flawed but it does have a history. For people who think this way, Existence Exists translates to God Exists.

Most sensible folk have gotten past anthropomorphizing physical reality. But not entirely. People still talk metaphorically about Mother Nature.

Bob Kolker

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Items 2 is utter balderdash. There are logical atheists. Unless one assumes God is Being or Existence, 3 is also nonsense.
What's interesting is that you missed #1 which is also utterly false. It is not the case that everybody has to assume logic is true. You do not have to, and it is not an assumption.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's interesting is that you missed #1 which is also utterly false. It is not the case that everybody has to assume logic is true. You do not have to, and it is not an assumption.

That is true. On the other hand, just about everyone I have ever met assumes some version of modus ponens. They don't have to , but they do. Long before Aristotle was born, humans were reasoning logically. Example; Thales was proving theorems in geometry 150 years before Aristotle.

I have often wondered why that is the case. I venture a guess. Something in the way we process language brings in logic as a side effect. Maybe. That is tantamount to asking why and how humans are reasoning beings. YMMV.

Bob Kolker

Edited by Robert J. Kolker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Modus ponens as the sine qua non of logic?

On the contrary, A is A is logic.

I fully agree, but would like to expand on this. Logic is the art of non-contradictory identification . As such, the other two essential elements of logic are corallaries of the law of identity: non-contradiction and either or. In the context of the topic of this thread, no essential element of logic presupposes the existence of god.

Edited by RichardParker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...