Transcendental argument for the non-existence of God
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Transcendental Argument for the Non-existence of God (also called TANG) was first explicitly formulated by Michael Martin in a 1996 article in New Zealand Rationalist & Humanist [1].
Contents |
[edit] Overview
It was first intended as a reply to the Transcendental argument for the existence of God, which argues that logic, science and morality can only be justified by appealing to the theistic worldview. TANG, however, argues that the reverse is true.
On logic, Martin agrees with the theologian that logic is necessary, but argues that this is incompatible with the notion of divine creation. If the latter is true, then everything in the universe is contingent on God, including logic, and therefore logic cannot be necessary, so the Christian worldview is false.
On science, Martin argues that Christianity is incompatible with belief in the uniformity of natural causes which underlies all scientific inquiry. Christianity necessarily implies the existence of miracles, as defined by a violation of the laws of nature. Therefore, science assumes that the Christian worldview is false.
On morality, Martin argues that Divine Command Theory, the brand of morality assumed to be held to by proponents of the Transcendental argument for the existence of God, makes moral principles contingent upon God's will. And if God created the universe, then it could be the case, for instance, that God makes gratuitous cruelty an absolute good. Furthermore, there is conflict amongst religious people about what God's will actually consists of, and there seems to be no way to rationally reconcile them (assuming the equal standing of all claims to divine inspiration). With these two premises, the argument concludes that upholding objective morality proves that the Christian worldview is false.
[edit] Criticisms
An objection to TANG is that logic, uniformity and morality are an inherent part of God's nature, and therefore cannot change. This objection has been raised by John Frame in a debate against Martin. To this Martin replied that "[t]he only reason for making such an assumption about God's nature is that it must exemplify some independent standard of logic. This is just to say that logic does not presuppose God." [2] The basic reply to the objection is that logic, uniformity and morality become independent standards which do not need divine creation at all to be affected, and God did not create them in any meaningful sense, contradicting the Transcendental argument for the existence of God to which TANG is a counter-argument.
Another problem with the objection is that it is impossible to make sense of the proposition that "logic is part of God's nature", insofar as TANG itself proposes that logic was in fact a creation of God. Logic cannot both be an intrinsic part of God's actions and created by God.
[edit] See also
- Materialist apologetics, a proposed extension of Martin's argument.
