[Joshua Rasmussen is the author of the Christian book, "How Reason Can Lead to God." IVP Academic 2019]
“We can now
summarize the entire argument of this book. The whole argument boils down to the following simple form:
Premise 1.
Reality in total is self-sufficient (with no outside cause
or explanation). Premise 2.
Nothing can be self-sufficient without a perfect foundation. Conclusion. Therefore, reality has a perfect foundation. Reason fills in supports for the premises. To support premise
1, reason reveals that nothing exists beyond the totality of all
things. This means the totality of reality is self-sufficient.” How Reason
Can Lead to God, Chapter 11 Perfect Foundation, Joshua Rasmussen
When Rasmussen says, the whole argument boils down to a "simple form," what he actually means is: the whole argument boils down to loaded premises!
A loaded premise is a statement or sentence that tries to smuggle in unsupported claims in order to justify its conclusion. Once these premises are identified and challenged the position usually self-destructs under the weight of its own insufficiency.
The fact
that Rasmussen's argument is an exercise in abstraction (pure idealism) is enough to
dismiss it. Even if the logic itself was flawless it wouldn’t prove the existence
of a Divine Being, let alone the Ultimate Divine Being or Beings, it would merely prove that its form was true to itself,
i.e., to its idealism:
“Idealism can... be understood as the practice of understanding abstractions through other abstractions; where an abstraction is something that does not necessarily have basis nor relation to reality, but only exists in relation to other abstractions.”*
[Human reason is not proof for the existence of God. Reason, by its very nature, precludes God. For reason to work, not only must a human brain function at a high cognitive capacity, but one must be born at the right time, at a time when this social tool has been able to develop to a level of conceptual value. If reason had something to do with a God or Gods one would expect it to be present from the dawn of the species, as opposed to a slow progression achieved over time. (The latter is what we would expect to find in a world conditioned by evolution.)]
Premise 1: “Reality in total,” is not something Rasmussen actually knows, it’s just a groundless, abstraction he asserts to make his argument seem like its substantive. “Self-sufficient” has the same evidential and rational status as that of the term God, which is to say; it’s a loaded concept, a piece of rhetoric deployed to try to prove something else, in this case, a vague notion of God.** Challenged, it cannot stand because it shatters to pieces under the weight of specific cross-examination – the precise thing Rasmussen ran from when I confronted him [see exchange below].
Premise 2: Here, as in all places, the burden of proof is too great for Rasmussen to bear; “perfection,” is another one of Rasmussen's imaginary ideals, a loaded premise. Of course, Rasmussen is free to prove that this is not the case, but the truth is that his vague generalizations (for which he can provide no example without begging the question) only work if they’re exempted from rational and evidential examination (the very thing Rasmussen claims to be basing his argument on)!
Conclusion: “therefore reality [just so long as Rasmussen gets to use all his loaded premises!] has a perfect foundation.” The amount of rational and evidential twisting one would have to do to call this reality “perfect,” is rather astounding; perfect for who or what? Was this reality "perfect" for all the species that went extinct?
"Reason reveals that nothing exists beyond the totality of all things."??? Oh my, then what do we say about an abstract notion of God that violates this use of the term "existence?" The premise of Rasmussen's argument negates his desire to posit a transcendent God. The honest conclusion of Rasmussen's reason (but he is not an honest thinker!) is that it locks him in the material universe, it's only by trying to deploy an undetected, non-sequitur fallacy that Rasmussen claims the existence of a transcendent God that exists outside "existence," i.e., the material universe. Rasmussen doesn't even comprehend his own reason, how, therefore, can he be a guide when it comes to the valid conclusions of reason?
Rasmussen's book is an intellectual joke, it’s certainly not the work of a serious thinker, but of a man who is content to prey on ignorance and intoxicate himself with his own sophistical supply. It’s not just my opinion that Rasmussen’s argument hinges on its ability to evade cross-examination, the following exchange between us proves that he couldn’t actually engage in rational discourse and that he fears his own burden of proof:
JERSEY FLIGHT LETTER TO RASMUSSEN
Aug 10, 2020:
"How Reason Can Lead to God."
I must confess, I find this a strange way to speak. One might say, "How Shovels Can Lead to Magic Fairies." After all, one is talking about a kind of tool leading to the discovery of a very specific kind of being. So why not shovels leading to fairies? One is tempted to simply say that "we all know that fairies do not exist." (I would add that we should all know this about God as well). However, the eccentric nature of the phrase is not my contention: when you say the tool of reason leads to God what exactly do you mean? Allow me to clarify, does this conceptual tool lead to a God or many Gods, are you sure the thing it leads to even qualifies to be called a God? How do you know? What is this thing, I mean, what kind of being (or beings) can you really deduce from (Aristotle's) man's reason?
But of course, this question provokes another: if you deduce a God from man's reason, then what do you deduce from his stupidity? (Although it should be noted that stupidity is not really the opposite of reason, the opposite of reason is really emotive automation.) Nevertheless the point stands, if you are in the habit of deducing entities from shovels, then it seems to me you don't have the right to pick and choose. Is your idea of God (or Gods) consistent with all that is negative in reality, or do you simply evade these portions of reality in order to achieve the deduction you desire? If it's the latter, which I suspect it must be, then your reasoning is actually leading you away from the God you fear in order to sustain the delusion of the God you desire.
C. S. Lewis put it this way:
“Not that I am (I think) in much danger of ceasing to believe in God. The real danger is of coming to believe such dreadful things about Him. The conclusion I dread is not 'So there's no God after all,' but 'So this is what God's really like. Deceive yourself no longer.” from A Grief Observed
Confidently yours,
Jersey Flight
JOSHUA RASMUSSEN: I appreciate your note, Jersey. I actually address all those questions in the book. But I appreciate your interest in being duly skeptical, and I do see how belief in gods and fairies could be associated. It's the reverse of those who associate mindless materialism with the production of an airplane out of a tornado. There's more to see for everyone, which certainly includes me.
Best wishes,
Josh
JERSEY FLIGHT: My friend, it's not that belief in fairies could be associated with your position, this is not the issue, the issue is in what you claim to know about a non-material-entity or entities from the basis of reason? I am highly skeptical that you have actually succeeded at deducing the existence of a God, most specifically a Christian Trinity, as it is obvious you're a Christian. Do tell me, how did you do this? How could you possibly deduce a Christian Trinity from man's concept of reason? Such a claim seems exceedingly dishonest. I think the reality is that you begin with the presumption of your Christian deity, and not, that you deduced it from reason.
For one split second in his life, thanks to grief providing objectivity, C. S. Lewis had a glimpse of reality, is it any surprise that he never followed this line of reason? Certainly not, because he was not after truth, he was after comfort. (C. S. Lewis was afraid of the truth!) Are you after comfort or do you have the courage to face the truth?
The bottom line is that the concrete nature of your conceptual methodology will not allow you to exceed its concretion, in order to do that you must become an acrobat capable of great leaps, specifically the continual use of the non-sequitur fallacy. It's not humility that drives powerful thought, but the psychological capacity to endure pain! The ability to suffer is what most thinkers are lacking.
JOSHUA RASMUSSEN: Yes, that makes sense, and honestly, is a legitimate concern. To be able to face reality, and its pains, takes courage.
Peace,
Josh
JERSEY FLIGHT: Friend, you have evaded every single question I have asked, why? Are my questions invalid; are you afraid, like C. S. Lewis, of what you might find if you go down this road?
What also "makes sense" is that your evasion is not the demeanor of an honest, rational thinker.
------------NOTES-----------
*Encyclopedia of Marxism, entry, "Idealism."
** Shockingly, Rasmussen actually does attempt to define the attributes of God, which is astounding because these premises do not follow from his argument:
“This God is perfect. This God is before all things that have been made. Without this God, there is nothing: no math, no logic, and no reason to produce other minds. The God of reason frees your mind so that you may discover the true greatness of the foundation of everything. God is as natural and untamed as reason itself. God has the following attributes (as we have deduced): 1. God is self sufficient. 2. God is independent. 3. God is necessarily existent. 4. God is ultimate. 5. God is eternally powerful. 6. God is purely actual (without gaps, holes, spots, blips, boundaries, wrinkles, or arbitrary limits). 7. God is unlimited. 8. God is the foundation of mind. 9. God is the foundation of matter. 10. God is the foundation of morals. 11. God is the foundation of math. 12. God is the foundation of reason. 13. God is purely positive. 14. God is maximally powerful. 15. God is maximally knowledgeable. 16. God is maximally good. 17. God is perfect.” Ibid.
If we're being honest, like everything else we observe in the universe, it's more probable that any creator or creators are temporal and material, contingent, dependent, limited in power, knowledge, ability; immoral as opposed to moral.
-
-
-
