No longer able to rely on Saint Thomas Aquinas’ 5 stolen so-called proofs for the existence of a god, and no longer able to rely on the flimsy and arrogant wager of Pascal, and no longer able to rely on the kindergarten logic of the Ontological Argument (itself an extension of Aquinas’ argument from degrees and perfection), and no longer able to rely on the argument from morality, and no longer able to rely on the arguments from scripture or miracles, the faithful have taken to a new, desperate, tautological, and exhaustingly fallacious argument for the existence of a god: The Presuppositionalism Argument. And it’s a doozy. And it should make you as exhausted as reading that opening sentence did.
If you follow this debate any, you’ll notice theists never state as proof anything simple that can be observed in nature or measured by experiment. Rather, a common trait of modern theistic arguments is increasing complexity, verbosity, and recursion. Confuse people with enough tautological complexity, they must reason, and the arguments will at least seem convincing enough to win over the emotional and credulous – and that’s enough to keep winning elections, stripping people of their natural freedoms, and persecuting the gays.
As an infidel engaged in the debate, allow me to describe to you as simply as I can the Presuppositionalism Argument. And then allow me to disassemble it for you.
The Presuppositionalism Argument begins with the notion that all thoughts are framed by things we naturally suppose about the universe. For even our most simple conversations and behaviors, we have to presuppose things about the world around us, or we could not conduct ourselves or carry on discussions.
Imagine, for instance, I am preparing for a trip to Central America, and accordingly, I presuppose the water will not be safe for me to drink. This presupposition is based on common warnings and the fact that I do not plan to test the water myself. From this presupposition should emerge certain behaviors that are consistent with what I’ve supposed: I should boil or treat all tap water, buy bottled water, and avoid fresh produce. And I should suggest to my travel partners they do the same – or we should expect to get sick. If during my trip to Central America I suggest that my travel partner drink water straight from the tap, this would be inconsistent with things I’ve presupposed about the water, and either violates the presupposition or proves I did not actually believe the presupposition to begin with.
So to begin with, the Presupposition Argument states that we frame our thoughts, beliefs, and conclusions on things we presuppose to be true, and that all our related behaviors, statements, and arguments should be consistent with our presuppositions. Otherwise, our arguments are invalid or our presuppositions are false.
From here, the Presupposition Argument describes atheists as naturalists, which is to say atheists believe (or presuppose) that everything in the universe emerges naturally from chemical and physical activity. It goes on to say that rational thinking by humans is something that can’t emerge from simple chemical activity or the effects of physics. Therefore, one cannot rationally consider whether or not a god exists while simultaneously presupposing that life is a completely natural phenomenon. Conversely, if the atheist presupposes that man is rational, he can not simultaneously believe that rationality is the product of completely natural phenomena, because (according to the theist) rational thought can not emerge this way.
While all of this is interesting to ponder for those with an existentialist bent, the Presuppositionists do not stop there. In much the way they have done for centuries, the religious apologists take one more absurd step. They use the Presuppositionalism Argument to draw a further conclusion – namely, that a god exists.
The argument takes one of two forms:
A. Presupposed naturalism is inconsistent with rational humanity. Therefore, god exists.
Or
B. Presupposed rationality in humans is inconsistent with a naturalist worldview. Therefore, god exists.
If you aren’t rolling your eyes already, please allow me to explain why you should be. First, if the Presuppositionalism Argument is correct in saying that rationality and naturalism are inconsistent worldviews, it doesn’t naturally lead to the conclusion that a god exists, because we are still left with the vexing and age-old question of: Whence did this god emerge?
Second, the religious apologists are wrong in presupposing that naturalism and rational beings are inconsistent worldviews. Understand that ‘rational’ is a human word assigned to our abilities of self-awareness and critical thinking. It is altogether possible, and widely held, that what we call ‘rationality’ is a mere characteristic of physical and chemical processes in our brain. Much of modern cognitive science is focused on this conclusion, and most emerging evidence supports the premise that our emerging behaviors (including thoughts) are the chemical output of complex neuro-chemical algorithms that are first shaped by genetics and then molded by experience, environment, nutrition, health, etc. Bear in mind also that every attempt to measure the arrival or departure of a ‘soul’ at birth or death by means of weight, radio frequency, light, radioactivity, etc. have failed. There has never been any evidence of supernatural influence on humans (or any other animal).
Additionally, the three major mono-theistic religions of the world – Christianity, Judaism, and Islam – all contend that souls and free will (an analog of rationality) are only bestowed upon humans. Animals, the apologists contend, have not been so endowed by their supposed creator, and can only behave reactively based on instinct. If this is in fact the case, why do we observe apparently rational behaviors in many lower animals? For instance, why do some birds and primates build tools? Why do rodents proactively hoard food? Why do mice learn how to navigate mazes based on trial and error? Why do many species practice purposeful, discerning selection of mates? Why do penguins choose life-long, monogamous relationships – which is seemingly inconsistent with species perpetuation? Why do dolphins engage in recreational sex? And why did our pet Grey African Parrot, Barney, actively tease and taunt our family dog, Howie, if the bird was only capable of acting on instinct and reaction to its environment? Either the animals also have souls or these seemingly complex behaviors do emerge from nature.
Therefore, the Presuppostionalism Argument for the existence of a god fails on two major points:
1. It itself wrongly presupposes, without evidence, that purposeful behavior and rational thought can’t emerge from nature.
2. It wrongly concludes based on its incorrect presuppositions that a god is implied to exist by a simple contradiction in worldviews (a contradiction that doesn’t exist).
Lastly, the whole notion of god wouldn’t receive so much critical thinking if it weren’t so aberrantly inconsistent with everything we can see and measure in nature. And if this god thingy doesn’t want us thinking critically about it, why doesn’t it just stop on by and say, “Hey dude, what’s up bro? It’s me, God.”?
