Richard Spencer on Twitter: “The Aloha-shirt clad “Ortho Bros” think they’ve really got something with the “transcendental argument” for being a Christian. https://t.co/t9ZRgUu1Id” / Twitter

Richard Spencer on Twitter: “”Transcendentalism” is a kind of “argument from autism.” In other words, because you believe in a “self” or a “soul”—or the continuation of identity across time—you MUST be able to justify this utmost coherency. Ergo: Jahweh.” / Twitter

Richard Spencer on Twitter: “Worth pointing out that the idea of a “soul” long-preexisted Judaism (when Jahweh breathed life into Adam). There was a soul concept of sorts in Egypt; also, Plato believed in the “soul,” even though he was never exposed to Judaism (or, needless to say, Christianity).” / Twitter

There are several common errors that Richard Spencer is making. The issue at hand isn’t whether people had knowledge of the soul or believed in souls prior to the Bible’s formation. The issue at hand is whether knowledge is possible apart from the Christian God. 

A common trait of confused atheists is to take for granted their views of history where religion evolved from lesser religious beliefs (e.g., animism). But Christians have a different view of history and a different view on the reasons for why knowledge is possible. The idea that religions preexisted the Biblical religion is to assume that Christianity just isn’t true. But why would a Christian agree to that? Maybe he wishes to say that nobody was practicing Judaism until after so many other religions and religious texts arose, but that is different than saying Christianity isn’t true or that knowledge is possible apart from Christianity. Richard either fails to argue for his position or his position doesn’t contradict Christianity and thus fails to be any objection at all. 

It is correct to criticize the Ortho-bro warriors, but this is rather an attack on Christian thought in general and a specific apologetic position. Various criticisms can be given of Dyer-like apologists:

Jay Dyer: Grand Theft Orthodoxy – The Council (spirited-tech.com)

I also think that Richard doesn’t grasp the significance of a transcendental argument or at least, the implications of the critique. If such criticism is correct, then effectively one cannot rely on their own worldview to present claims about what is or isn’t possible or what is or isn’t knowledge. One loses the epistemological ability to distinguish between verification or falsification. Hence why one may not take seriously this misconception of TAG.

Furthermore, the issue of identity over time is a difficult issue. Many philosophers have doubted the existence of a ‘self’. This is also found in Eastern Religions (e.g., Buddhism’s no self doctrine). David Hume doubted the existence of the enduring self because it was not empirically verifiable.