First, Drange’s intent is to counter Wilson’s assertion that he — Pastor Wilson — is not really making an argument for God’s existence. I’m not sure if Pastor Wilson actually claimed this, but if he did, I believe it was a mistake. Bahnsen’s statements are certainly compatible with making an argument for God’s existence.

However, I believe Drange’s refutation of that point contains error, as follows:

In the first section of Drange’s rebuttal, he cites Wilsons’ example of a person who says, “I base all my thoughts on reason,” and he assails Wilson for asking the reason for doing so and for saying, “How can an embrace of reason be justified through an appeal to reason?”

I believe Drange’s critique is in error here and Wilson actually has trapped the fellow. Notice Drange’s suggested reply: “That’s just the way I am and I can’t help it.” Now, if that statement is true, then the fellow does *not* base all his thoughts on reason! Thus, Drange’s reply is self-defeating. Drange tries to circumvent this logical bind by defining the word “reason” as “motive.” This is an obvious equivocation. The person in Wilson’s example did not say, “I base all my thoughts on my motive.” This is nonsense. Instead, they claimed to arrive at all mental conclusions through the process of reason. And Wilson was quite justified in responding, “What is your reason for doing so?”

My response to this.