You can defeat the TAG[1] if you can show that there is a way to account for intelligible predication without presupposing the Christian worldview. Otherwise, the latter’s claim to account for it stands.
Go ahead. Make my day.
If Christ is πρό πάντων (pro pantōn), that is, before (“prior to”) all things (Colossians 1:17), then He is πρό φιλοσοφία (see Colossians 2:8), that is, before philosophy.
If awareness of Christ is the foreword or prologue to sound philosophizing (wisdom-seeking), if such cognizance is the beginning (תְּחִלַּ֣ת, tehillat) of wisdom (חָ֭כְמָה, hakmah); Proverbs 9:10), then believing that God exists (ὅτι ἔστιν, Hebrews 11:6) is not an afterthought, an inference from something created (e.g., a “theistic proof”).
If Christ is the ground of inference, then you cannot philosophize (analyze, synthesize) profitably without acknowledging the priority that πρό implies, that is, without acknowledging who Christ is. You’re just beating the air.
I cannot even make and defend that assertion without engaging in Christian apologetics, that is, the defense of the biblical worldview. Now, am I changing the subject? No, but perhaps you’re evading it. The subject is the ground of the seamless coalescence of the incommensurable predications (epistemological, metaphysical, ethical, and so forth) that we can identify in our experience.[2] When I engage in apologetics, I show that (a) what you’re presupposing, even at the inception (spoken or unspoken) of your predications doesn’t meet the issue and (b) how your presuppositions are in tension with your professions.
At issue is your ultimate epistemological authority: God’s Word or the product of your mental innards. That is, when the epistemologically self-conscious Christian speaks with the non-believer about Christ, he does not adopt a posture of neutrality or pretend that they’re playing on a “level playing field.” It’s God’s field. (See Paul’s approach to the pagan philosophers on Mars [Ares] Hill.[3]) No, he confronts him as a fellow creature living in God’s world and counters any objection by asking the non-believer to show his hand. If the interlocutor complies, the Christian proceeds to test his worldview for its ability to account for intelligible predication.
Paul’s audience passed on the opportunity: “And when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked: and others said, ‘We will hear thee again of this matter.’” (Acts 17:32)
And if they do, then the fun begins. But there’s no shortcut. Objections have to be taken on a case-by-case basis, including the one from “anti-dogmatism” (i.e., “there are no knockdown arguments”).[4]
Ap0logetics may employ the tools of the profession or calling called “philosophy,” but in the practice of philosophy after, not before[5] Christ.
Notes
[1] Anthony G. Flood, “No Mere Assertion: The Transcendental Argument for the Christian Worldview (and, Therefore, for the Existence of God),” July 28, 2021; see also “The Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God Revisited: Toward a Response to Bill Vallicella,” October 31, 2023.
[2] Anthony G. Flood, “‘I’m doing philosophy; you’re doing apologetics!,’” December 25, 2024.
[3] Anthony G. Flood, “Philosophy before Christ: the case of an Athenian fence-sitter,” March 1, 2024 (exactly a year ago): “The Epicureans and Stoics within earshot [of the Apostle Paul] were curious about the doctrine this ‘babbler’ (σπερμολόγος, spermologos) was propagating (v. 18). They had nothing with which to counter Paul’s proclamation of the One Who had predicted His death and resurrection (ἀνάστασις, anastasis). For them, the report of the latter was the latest novelty (τι καινότερον, ti kainoteron) (v. 20).”
[4] Anthony G. Flood, “On dogma and dogmatism,” February 22, 2025.
[5] Anthony G. Flood, “How I philosophized when I put philosophy before Christ,” October 21, 2024.