So then, where does the Bible say, “Logic is valid.”? Almost surprisingly, the Bible isn't much less clear than that. The word 'logic' is a derivative of the Greek word 'logos', which we know from John 1 is in fact the person of Jesus Christ (“In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God”). Simply put, God is logic. This translation of the word also fits in very well with the understanding of the Trinity Edwards and Piper hold to that I wrote about some time ago concerning Christ being the knowledge God has of Himself. God's statement to Moses, “I am that I am.” is practically a verbatim use of the first principle, the law of identity (A=A) that Aristotle formulated. Or more accurately, Aristotle’s 'brilliant' formulation in the 3rd century B.C. was only about 1000 years after Moses had recorded God saying it. God even says in Isaiah 1:18, “Come, let us reason together.” And while that treads dangerously close to trying to derive an ought from an is, or in this case an is from an ought, when God includes Himself, because of His omniscience, omnipotence and inability to lie, we may safely derive an is from an ought. We also have the abundant examples of Christ and Paul's often complicated logical arguments in the New Testament.
There is a fair amount of debate even among Christians as to the extent of the validity of the use of logic in theology. Just mention the word 'logic' in Christian circles and someone, often with an air of spirituality and perhaps in a voice meant to convey profundity, will likely blurt out, “I don't want to limit God.” or “God is above logic.” I admit there is an appearance of spirituality here, but in actuality it is a covering for ignorance or stupidity. While I whole-heartily agree that I don't want to, nor indeed am in any way able to limit God, that does not mean God has not limited Himself. We know that God is truth and cannot lie. Therefore God cannot lie. Am I limiting God by saying, “God cannot lie.”? We know God is holy. Therefore He cannot be unholy. Am I limiting God by saying, “God cannot be unholy.”? In the same way, since God is logic, He cannot be illogical.
Now that we have established the validity of logic, we have a means of deriving truth that is not explicitly revealed in Scripture. As the Westminster Confession says, “The whole counsel of God,... is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence, may be deduced from Scripture.” This would seem simple enough, but logic is often misunderstood. People often claim to know something “logically” when in fact they are committing logical fallacies (I'm reminded of the witch scene from Monty Python and the Search for the Holy Grail). So a brief explanation of what logic is and is not may be helpful.
Logic is the study of valid inference, or as stated above, necessary consequence. It has strict laws that must be followed. This definition itself is often misunderstood since the terms valid and necessary are often misunderstood. For logical purposes they are synonymous describing an argument in which the truth of the premises entails the truth of the conclusion. This is deductive reasoning. It can also be understood as reasoning from the general to the specific. The classic example is :
All men are mortal.
Socrates is a man.
Therefore Socrates is mortal.
Here the reasoning goes from the general (all men) to the specific (Socrates). This is a valid argument. If the two premises (All men are mortal, and Socrates is a man) are true, the conclusion (Socrates is mortal) is necessarily true as well.
Inductive reasoning, or reasoning from the specific to the general (and what people often mistake for logic), is actually logically fallacious (and can therefore at best give us probabilities, not truths). Taking the same statements above but reasoning inductively we have:
Socrates is a man.
Socrates is mortal.
Therefore all men are mortal.
Here the reasoning goes from the specific (Socrates) to the general (all men). While the invalidity of this example is not easy to see because “All men are mortal.” is generally accepted as true, it is nonetheless invalid. Another example will show this more clearly.
Midnight is a cat.
Midnight is a good pet.
Therefore all cats are good pets.
Unfortunately we do not have the present voice of those who have been killed by large cats such as mountain lions and tigers to attest the fallacy of this conclusion, but nevertheless we know that not all cats are good pets. Here we have true premises (Midnight is a cat, and Midnight is a good pet) but the conclusion (Therefore all cats are good pets) is false. It is important to understand the only differences in this argument and the second Socrates argument are the subjects and predicates. The form is the same. Symbolically they both could have been written as
X is Y
X is Z
Therefore all Y is Z
where X = Socrates or Midnight, Y = Man or Cat and Z = Mortal or Pet
Regardless of how written and regardless of whether the conclusions are true or not, the arguments themselves are invalid and cannot prove anything. It is worth noting that this inductive reasoning (from the specific to the general) is the only reasoning available to the scientific community.
In contrast, the initial Socrates argument can be written as
All X is Y
Z is X
Therefore Z is Y
where X = Men, Y = Mortal and Z = Socrates
Regardless of the symbols used, this argument is valid. This is an important concept to understand regarding logic. Validity refers to the form of an argument, not the content. The premises in a valid argument may be true or false, but if they are true, then the conclusion is always true as well. And since this argument is valid, any subjects and predicates substituted for X, Y and Z that make true premises (All X is Y, and Z is X) will necessarily result in the conclusion (Z is Y) being true as well.
So then, to arrive at truth we must not only have valid logical arguments (deductive rather than inductive), but we must have valid arguments with true premises. As we've seen, valid deductive arguments are fairly easy to construct, but where do we get true premises? From valid deductive arguments with true premises. But again, where do we get these new true premises? From more valid deductive arguments with true premises. This reasoning would result in infinite regress (and does for the rationalist, though Aristotle unsuccessfully attempted to explain it away) except that we have truth in the form of propositional revelation in the Bible. This is my starting point, or to use more intellectual language, it's my presupposition, and therefore, by definition, unprovable. Hence it would be pointless (and Robbins says even detrimental) to try and prove that which cannot be proven. (I believe he maintains it is the work of the Holy Spirit to prove the unprovable). This commitment (that everyone necessarily has, though perhaps unknown) to some presupposition is why all reasoning is ultimately circular. There must be an unprovable beginning. (It's quite ironic, and somewhat funny, when people think they are being logical and intelligent by asking someone to prove their presuppositions. In case you don't see the humor, rather than showing their intelligence, they're showing their ignorance of even the definition of the term.) So while all reasoning is circular, not all reasoning is self-defeating. Well, I should say one reasoning is not self-defeating, namely logical deduction from the Bible, or simply biblical Christianity. All others are not only circular (as biblical Christianity is) but also self-defeating (as biblical Christianity is not). This understanding has led me to expand my view of the Bible. Growing up in Southern Baptist churches, I was taught the inerrancy and inspiration of the Bible. It wasn't until I came to a Reformed understanding that I came to see it as sufficient for “all things pertaining to life and godliness.” Now however, I've come to see it not only as true and sufficient, but exclusively true. There is no truth apart from the Scriptures (which Calvin and the other reformers taught, but I've just now understood).
The sciences, or rather ignorant and/or deceptive scientists, have somehow fooled the average person into thinking that the sciences belong with logic in the realm of truth assertion. This is simply not the case. The only method of reasoning available to the sciences is inductive reasoning and that from false premises. Einstein himself said he would never accept his theory of relativity as true, even if all of its predictions were accurate. He acknowledged that it more accurately predicted things than Newtonian physics, but through any number of points, there are an infinite number of lines that can be drawn through those points and therefore an infinite number of formulas for those lines. If there are an infinite number of possible answers, the probability of choosing the right one is 1/infinity. So not only are scientific theories not likely true, they are certainly not true. And from these certainly false theories (premises), more inductive and fallacious reasoning is done to arrive at more theories. This is done through many stages with the end result being scientists supposedly proving something and giving us truth. While many contemporary “intellectuals” have not acknowledged this, some have. Karl Popper, an agnostic and one of the most influential philosophers of science in the 20th century said,
First, although in science we do our best to find the truth, we are conscious of the fact that we can never be sure whether we have got it...[W]e know that our scientific theories always remain hypotheses... in science there is no “knowledge” in the sense in which Plato and Aristotle understood the word, in the sense which implies finality; in science, we never have sufficient reason for the belief that we have attained the truth. … Our attempts to see and to find the truth are not final, but open to improvement; … our knowledge, our doctrine is conjectural; … it consists of guesses, of hypotheses rather than of final and certain truths.
Bertrand Russell, another highly regarded secular philosopher and logician who was also quite antagonist towards Christianity, was even more condemning of the contemporary sciences when he said,
All inductive arguments in the last resort reduce themselves to the following form: “If this is true, that is true; now that is true, therefore this is true.” This argument is, of course, formally fallacious. Suppose I were to say; “If bread is a stone and stones are nourishing, then this bread will nourish me; now this bread does nourish me; therefore it is a stone and stones are nourishing.” If I were to advance such an argument, I should certainly be thought foolish, yet it would not be fundamentally different from the argument upon which all scientific laws are based.
This formal fallacy that he mentions is so common it has been named, but despite its widespread use, the fallacy of affirming the consequent is still fallacious. And yet, as Russell said, fundamentally it is upon this fallacy that “all scientific laws are based.”
My older brother, who certainly disagrees with my epistemology, acknowledged this and said that any decent scientist knows it. Perhaps he's right. He himself is quite intelligent and more well-read than I am concerning the sciences and philosophy, so it would be reasonable for him to be familiar with this understanding. However, the fact that I went through elementary, middle and high school along with five years at three different universities (and got a degree) without ever having this basic understanding of the limitations of science explained to me seems questionable. The atheists and evolutionists I've talked to certainly don't have this understanding. Even the debate about whether evolution should be taught as fact or theory is evidence that the education system doesn't understand this limitation. How could anyone argue for some scientific proposition being taught as fact when science is incapable of arriving at any fact or truth? Unless of course one is making decisions based on one's presuppositions (which one necessarily asserts as true) rather than on what is actually provable. Unfortunately most supposed and even true Christians don't understand the impossibility for science to give us truth. Nor do they have the above menioned exclusivistic view of the Bible as true.
For those who reject my view, you are in a difficult position. It's precisely because I have a Christian view of logic that I can expect your mind and thought processes to be conformed to the laws of logic. Logic is valid because God thinks logically. Man is made in the image of God, therefore man thinks, or at least should think, logically. Notice here I am arguing why logic is valid, not how we know logic is valid as I was above. Without this basis, how do you impose the standard of having to be logically convinced that I am correct? Or why do you think, supposing you were able to do it, that convincing me logically of your position should have any effect on my beliefs? The most common answer to this question from atheists is something like, “Well everybody knows that.” or, “Because....” and then nothing. And people accuse Christians of taking a “leap of faith” and being irrational. It is so ironic that the accusers are guilty of exactly what they accuse others of being but are too deceived to see it in themselves. We should never be ashamed of admitting our presuppositions. They are unprovable, yes, but everyone has them, and the Christian presuppositions are the only ones that fit in with the world we see, the way we think and the experiences we have. The evolutionist/atheist must admit (though they usually will not) that the true love that they long for, the truth they yearn to know and the purpose they hope to fulfill are logically inconsistent with their presuppositions, but they cannot disregard the reality they feel. They must live inconsistently or not live at all. The Christian alone can live and live consistently. And yet every time we sin, we act as though God does not exist.
For any seriously interested in these topics, I'd recommend John Robbins' mp3 lecture serieses which can be found at www.TrinityFoundation.org (for free via download) and Michael B. Yang's Reconsidering Ayn Rand (which draws heavily from Robbins' works as well as Robbins' mentor Gordon Clark's works). If you are already very familiar with philosophy and philosophers (or are simply much more intelligent than I am), jumping straight into Clark's An Introduction to Christian Philosophy, A Christian View of Men and Things, The Philosophy of Science and Belief in God or Thales to Dewey would probably be the most direct path. I've begun An Introduction to Christian Philosophy and have never felt like such an idiot while reading an Introduction book.
12 comments:
I like it. Not that that makes anything you've said any more or less correct. I am interested in sending this to my Aunt and hearing her response.
~Ariel
What do you suppose happens when you start with a false premise?
The problem with propositional epistemology is that a perfectly valid conclusion (based on the logic) can be perfectly false.
But if truth doesn't matter, why bother with the epistemology?
If truth DOES matter, try starting with a demonstrable fact, instead of a faith-based proposition.
You may not get the conclusions you were hoping for, but then again, if truth doesn't matter, why bother with the epistemology?
AcesLucky, I didn't think it was possible, but apparently you've missed the whole point of the post.
Yes, a valid conclusion can be false, but not a valid conclusion from true premises. It necessarily must be true (which I thought I made clear, but perhaps not). Your idea of a "demonstrable fact" doesn't exist. That's what the quotes from Russell and Einstein show, that not only do Christians recognize that science and observation can NEVER arrive at truth, but secular scientists/philosophers recognize it as well.
But just to show that you contradict yourself, your assumption that a "demonstrable fact" does exist has not been demonstrated. What you have done is adopted a "faith-based proposition", namely that demonstrable facts do exist and we should only believe them. Now the difference is that your epistemology contradicts itself and is therefore false. The contradiction being that we should only believe what we have demonstrated to be true. But since you have not demonstrated this to be true, you cannot, by your own worldview, believe it. This is why your epistemology is self-defeating. As I said, Scripturalism, as Robbins called it, does have presuppositions, but they aren't self-defeating.
You can go to AcesLucky's blog at
http://toughquestionsblog.com/ and see that he obviously thinks himself an educated and insightful person (he "saw the light" in his early 20's). And yet, here he is making an elementary blunder of self-contradiction. I'll admit, he probably is a smart guy, much smarter than me, but an ignorant and uneducated (my degree's in Rec and Leisure, not Religion and Philosophy) person such as myself can show the absurdity of his arguments. Not that I fault him. This is the best the world can offer.
You said:
"...and my epistemology is propositional revelation, basically, "The Bible tells me so."
Clearly you do not believe this. I could demonstrate for you passage after passage from the words of Jesus himself, and you will be shown not to follow them AND you will make excuses as to why his words don't mean what they say. (Most so-called "followers" do this.)
Can you drink poison without harm? You can if you believe what Jesus said. Can you heal the sick? You can if you believe what Jesus says. Have you given up all your worldly possessions to follow Him? Not as long as you have a computer!
Your epistemology is not as you represent. You do NOT believe the bible because it tells you so! You are a reasonable, thinking human being. And that is how I know you do NOT follow the bible or your own epistemology.
All I suggested was that you START with a fact; a demonstrable truth. And move from there. Is that so blasphemous?
And by the way, the "toughquestionsblog" is not mine. Once again, if you start with a false premise, you'll end with a false conclusion. Get the facts first and then base your conclusions on the facts; not the other way around.
I am not trying to criticize the way you live or what you believe. I simply want people to start with truth, not with faith. Faith has very violent and ignorant consequences when followed without facts. And that's all I wanted to point out.
By the way, I am a student of Epistemology, and that's how I came upon your blog. Then, after reading it, I commented accordingly.
And yes I do have a blog, but not the one you thought. It's http://www.TrughAboveFaith.com and if you click on the only Epistemology link you'll discover why faith is not epistemologically valid; and thus my concern about starting with a false premise. Truth does not require the assistance of faith. So why not start there?
I'm very anxious to respond to this, but I've got an 18 bus ride today, so it won't be for a day or two.
Part 1
We could get into a verse by verse discussion of the Bible and Jesus' teachings in which I would hold to my insistence that I do believe it, however that is not necessary because I have not claimed to live perfectly consistent with my worldview. In fact I acknowledged that I do not in my original post. This is sin on my part and is admittedly a blemish on Christianity as the Bible says it would be. If I, and other professing Christians, lived more like Christ, then our message would be more plausible.
I did not say I “believe the bible because it tells [me] so!”. I believe the Bible because the Holy Spirit convinced me it was true. I believe what the Bible says because the Bible says it.
Your argument;
I [Seth] am reasonable
Therefore I [Seth] do not follow the Bible or my own epistemology
is not a good one. I hesitate to even call it an argument.
Yes, I understood that you urged me to start with a fact. I then in my response showed you logically how that was self-contradictory, therefore false, therefore I would not adopt that epistemology. I was hoping you would show how what you said is not self-contradictory, or at least try, but you did just as pretty much every atheists I've encountered responds, by reasserting the very thing I've shown to be self-contradictory. So, in biblical language, yes, it is blasphemous, but I prefer self-contradictory and therefore self-defeating.
I have on numerous occasions been accused of not admitting when I am wrong. I've always thought it a baseless accusation, and in evidence of that, I do apology for so haphazardly mistaking a blog you follow for being a blog you write. I was wrong in that.
“Get the facts first and then base your conclusions on the facts; not the other way around.” Here again you reassert what I've said you haven't demonstrated. I was hoping you would attempt to show how Einstein, Russell, Popper and many others are wrong when they say that science can NOT ever arrive at truth and facts, but again, rather than deal with the fatal blow I've dealt your worldview, you merely repeat it as if it's still valid. Granted, your method is successful. Many mindless droves believe many lies because the lies are reasserted and the objections are never dealt with, but that is all you will convince, the mindless droves. It is in your favor that most of the world are mindless droves.
Part 2
I'm not trying to criticize you, but I am trying to (and I believe very successfully) criticize your epistemology. I simply want (among other things) people to acknowledge that no matter what they start with as truth, they're starting with that as truth based on faith. Because it they're basing it on something, then they aren't starting with it. But somewhere, they are starting with something, and that something, since by necessity of being the start and thus unproven, is accepted on faith. That's all I want to point out. Supposed facts have very violent and ignorant consequences when followed from contradictory epistemologies.
As for the article you recommended, thanks for pointing it out. I love seeing so many blaring contradictions and faith assumptions in things written to discredit faith assumptions.
The conclusion seems to be that “Faith is epistemologically invalid precisely because it is not falsifiable; it is indifferent to evidence, and it retains no commitment to truth by way of 'testable consequences.' “ Where does she prove that that which is not falsifiable is not valid epistemologically? Because if that hasn't been proven then it's a faith assumption. Let me give you another one. “Because it is indifferent to evidence, claptrap is indefeasible. Hence it is untenable.” Where is it proven that that which is indefensible is unteneable? I don't think it is. Rather, it's a faith assumption.
Seriously, do you not see the blaring ignorance in this? Using big words and eloquent writing is not a substitute for intelligence, but the mindless droves love it and won't see the contradictions, so maybe you should continue to use it. I wouldn't recommended using it on me though, it just makes me think less of you.
You wrote:
---
"I did not say I "believe the bible because it tells [me] so!". I believe the Bible because the Holy Spirit convinced me it was true. I believe what the Bible says because the Bible says it."
---
Did you by chance notice some of the posts at the TruthAboveFaith site? Two dead children, two men going on murderous rampages, and a fat man who died waiting for Jesus to keep his word.
All these people believed what their holy book told them. In what way is your value system any different than theirs?
In this discussion I am hoping to get you to see that a faith based on a falsehood doesn't make it true. The horrific consequences that followed should have made that obvious, if not self evident.
Faith provides no means of determining a true from a false proposition; that's why it is epistemologically invalid. (I'll be happy to supply a demonstration if you need it.)
Because faith provides no means of determining a true from a false proposition, faith invites belief in that which is false.
PS: if needed, I will also supply a demonstration that what you believe to be the Holy Spirit cannot determine a true from a false proposition either. We can simply test them.
Yes, I did notice them. The fact that you would make such an argument shows your total lack of understanding of the idea of necessary consequence and sufficient cause. A necessary consequence is a conclusion that MUST necessarily follow. A sufficient cause is a cause that by itself is sufficient to bring about an effect. Your argument is basically
People who hold my belief (which I don't know that's been demonstrated, but I'll grant it) have committed atrocities.
Therefore my belief is wrong.
I'm not sure if after seeing it in that form you realize how bad of an argument it is, so if not I'll point it out. First off, you're arguing from a specific to a universal. If you'll read my original post, you'll see that this is inductive reasoning and not valid for making truth claims (If you doubt that, go look up inductive reasoning and read about it). That should be the end of the story. You're arguing illogically. Second, and less technically is the one I already admitted. I'm a sinner, those people are sinners. Even if those people truly did believe my presupposition (which I have my doubts), they would (I think) admit that they do not live consistently with their worldview. Third, even if they did live consistently, they can reason wrongly. While I said valid deductive reasoning from truth always yields truth, inductive and fallacious reasoning from truth can still yield falsehood. Your examples may merely have reasoned incorrectly. And if you doubt that people can reason incorrectly, you're a perfect example of people making logical errors (as I pointed out above and earlier).
Your argument is even worse than if I made an argument against atheists because Stalin and many other horrible people have been atheists (The reason yours is worse is because from atheism, and materialism in particular, despair, no value for human life, etc are necessary consequences of that philosophy).
I agree, faith and reasoning based on a falsehood doesn't render true conclusions. That what I've been trying to convince you of. You have not disproven the truth of the Bible. However, I did disprove your epistemological method by showing it is self-contradictory and self-defeating. Therefore how can you still hold it? You just acknowledged that believing something not true doesn't make it true. So why do you still believe what can't be true.
You don't need to give me any demonstrations, though if you could formulate a proof, that'd be nice. I think I've given plenty of examples of how that's done logically. But really I'd be content if you'd just answer the objections I've already given you. In my last post, how are the claims that the article makes not faith assumptions? How is your basic presupposition that one must start with a fact not a truth assumption (namely that facts exist and we must start with them).
Since you brought up those so-called Christian examples, I have to wonder, why did you bring them up? Were you just bringing them up as I might comment that I like vanilla ice cream? Or were you implying something? I assume (but if you're consistent you'll correct me) that you brought them up because you think there's something wrong with murdering others or letting one's child die. If that's the case, on what basis do object to those events. What 'fact' says that murder is wrong? Certainly not a 'fact' from nature, since nature has no murder. It's survival of the fittest. So please justify your value system (whatever it is) without making a faith assumption, since you don't think they're valid.
You wrote:
--
"The fact that you would make such an argument shows your total lack of understanding of the idea of necessary consequence and sufficient cause. A necessary consequence is a conclusion that MUST necessarily follow. A sufficient cause is a cause that by itself is sufficient to bring about an effect. Your argument is basically
People who hold my belief (which I don't know that's been demonstrated, but I'll grant it) have committed atrocities.
Therefore my belief is wrong."
---
I'm sorry Seth, that wasn't my argument. My argument stated: "All these people believed what their holy book told them. In what way is your value system any different than theirs?" (Key terms = value system; not what they did but why they did it.)
Do you, or do you not, believe what your holy book tells you? Earlier you stated "I believe what the Bible says because the Bible says it." Their actions were based on the fact that THEY TOO believed what their holy book told them!
The fact that they went on to commit atrocities BASED on their belief in what their holy books told them is your "necessary consequence and sufficient cause." Thank you for clarifying that fact. But please understand, I'm more interested in the VALUES that are the results of these beliefs.
And so I asked, "In what way is your value system (belief in a holy book) different than theirs?"
Long story short: you're attacking a straw man. And the argument you made about "necessary consequences" is exactly what I'm trying to show you! The consequences of their beliefs necessarily followed from the sufficient cause of following them.
Problem is: you too, as best I can tell, have the same value system! And that's why I asked "In what way is your value system any different than theirs?"
==
==
You did conclude by saying:
---
"I agree, faith and reasoning based on a falsehood doesn't render true conclusions. That what I've been trying to convince you of."
---
Excellent! WE have a point of agreement and it's a good one. Thus, how can we know that "faith (and reasoning)" is NOT based on a falsehood?
Clearly, if we start with an assumption (that turns out to be a falsehood) we will end with conclusions that may not agree with reality; in other words, they may not be true.
So how do we simply avoid starting with (any) assumptions?
I recommend starting with demonstrable *facts* and going from there. This requires no faith.
For example, to start with an assumption that a certain book (say the Koran) is the word of God, like it or not, is an "indefeasible" assumption. That is, it cannot be disproved, and because so many people make that assumption on the basis of faith, no evidence is going to be accepted EVEN IF it proved the assumption wrong!
And therein lies the problem. What if it really is wrong! Can you see that by virtue of faith, no Muslim is going to accept that fact in spite of any evidence produced? And what if, as a natural (necessary) consequence of that faith, they proceed to kill the infidel because they THINK a God told them to (sufficient cause)?
Can you see how this can be an on-going disaster?
Post a Comment