4 Comments

Mike Felker

Chris, how do you think this article compares with Butler’s?

C.L. Bolt

Stern is a good (and important) read as he has been working with transcendental arguments for some time. He has at least two books on the topic, and in that sense is probably the “authority” on them in philosophical literature.

Butler’s article pertains to the transcendental argument for God in particular, even though it does borrow from the work of others in the area of transcendental arguments in general (like Stern’s). So I would say that the content of the two articles is related, but very different, and rightfully so. Both are excellent articles for what they attempt to accomplish.

Peter Ochoa

The article says that Transcendental arguements are ineffective against very radical forms of skepticism, which doubt the laws of logic. But I am wondering is Radical Skepticism even a possible position? Why do they make it seems like that is a possiblity I thought radical skepticism is self refuting because of an infinite regress of skepticism.

C.L. Bolt

You’re on the right track. That’s essentially what he says. It depends on the form of skepticism and how it is held by the skeptic as to whether or not a TA even needs to be used.

If the skeptic is not willing to “play the reason giving game” then we’re not really interested in doing apologetics with that person since apologetics by nature pertain to reasons.


Leave a Comment