We have looked at some overwhelming evidential support to demonstrate the validity of Messianic Judaism/Christianity from a Historical and Sociological perspective up to this point. We have demonstrated a very crude understanding to Biblical Exegesis and Hermeneutics, taking the Bible at face value, and have demonstrated how to let Scripture interpret Scripture. However, in our postmodern age, what we see from many people (and this is often arbitrarily done by many) is an attack on the nature of Truth. This directly affects our understanding of the Bible. Thus, its important to set things straight. What I want to discuss with people today is a subject that many Christian Apologists touch on and I think EXTREMELY well. What I think is important, is that we encourage and commend these Christian Philosophers..the Presuppositional Apologists. They are actually correct to make the claims that they do. This is not Aristetolian Logic...it is in fact Biblically based logic because it was created by God first. Aristotle merely is credited with the discovery and in fact refuted his own reasoning.
I need to make the point that I used to have a strong fascination with Philosophers for many years while still a Christian Apologist, and have studied the minds of Ayn Rand, Nietzsche, Machiavelli, Hume, Kant...amongst others, but also Aquinas, Aristotle, Plato, Augustine, and the early church fathers. I do not intend on spending a lot of time on Philosophy, as my intention is more to look at Biblically related subjects, and reconcile the Jews and the Christians. I may decide to bring some of my Philosophical arguments from my former site to here, but I do not feel called to do so at this time. It must be understood at the same time, this understanding is extremely useful when you are engaged in a debate, and it is extremely effective for Presuppositional Apologetics. First lets touch base on what logic actually is. Most people recognize that there are different principles of logic that are valuable to all of our areas of study. Metaphysics is an underlying reality for all studies and disciplines that we have. Regardless of whether people recognize the principles as being valuable or not, they are utilized by ALL people within the world today. Let us take a look at some important foundational principles. The Principle of Excluded Middle states that it must either be one thing, or the opposite, but it can not be both. Logically this is expressed as Either a or non-a, not both. The Principle of Identity states that something is what it is. Its very simple. A wall that I am touching, is in fact the wall that I am touching. Logically, this is expressed as a = a. The final principle of logic that I want to look at today is the Principle of noncontradiction. This states that something can not both be and not be at the same time in the same sense. IOW, one can not say of something that it is and is not at the same time in the same sense. In otherwords a is not = to non-a. Also, causality is at the central core to most Scientific arguments and Christian/Messianic Jewish Apologetics. Causality states that for every effect, there must be a cause. Its important that we get an accurate cause, or else we are committing the fallacy of False Cause and Effect. We will touch base on a few aspects of Science later...as we will actually have a guess writer, a Doctorate in Pharmacy..with a background of Biology discuss with us the importance of Creation Science vs. Evolution. I'm excited about the two topics he will be writing about. He will be discussing Irreducible Complexity and the Genetic Code, two subjects which while he was going to school for his Scientific education that he believes actually refutes Evolution, instead of supports it. He does not see a way to compromise the two.
Anything which goes against the principles of logic is what is known as a contradiction. This is because all of the Principles of logic are deducible to the Principle of Contradiction. This is the central principle to logical understanding, and nothing makes sense without it. When people do not utilize them, we see what are known as self stultified arguments. A self stultified argument is defined by Dr. Glenn Miller at www.christian-thinktank.com/stult2.html. He defines it as an argument which undercuts itself, the case that it advances as proof, the presuppositions inherent in the subject matter being discussed, or the presuppositions inherent within the speech act. IOW, this black horse is not black, is a contradiction. A statement such as, this horse is black only half of the time is another example. Thus the contradiction is reflective of what does not correspond to reality, since it serves to undercut itself. Given the principles of logic that we have, this would infer that the opposite is true (although, if one feels necessary to do so, it may be necessary for someone else to actually go about and prove the opposite to be true). Essentially, that which is logical corresponds to reality. This is known as the Correspondence Theory of Truth and is the foundational structure according to logic that truth is centered around. All other theories of truth, including the Coherence and Intentionalist utilize this Theory in their formation of their understanding of truth.
The Correspondence Theory of truth is centered around an understanding which is known as Absolute Truth..truth that corresponds to reality for all places and at all times. In recent years, due to the Philosophical understandings of several movements which we will be discussing soon, including Postmodernism, Modernistic understandings from David Hume and Immanuel Kant, and Mysticism, Absolute truth has been under question. As we look into these movements later, we will discover from these Philosophical movements is not only are they self refuting, but they are not centrally based on sound Metaphysics centered around the Principles of Noncontradiction. They also do not do anything to discourage the central principles of logic, which should encourage Christians of all understandings around the world today!
The attacks on Absolute truth are centrally based around a Philosophical understanding known as Relativism, but also coming from the likes of Postmodernists and Existentialists, and we will look at this understanding in detail. This understanding comes CENTRALLY from a Greek understanding. The Stoics and Epicureans were masters at utilizing this type of understanding, and even the beginnings of Atheism may be seen in Protagoras. Socrates in an exchange with Protagoras, made the statement that there is no truth. We see this understanding quite frequently from Relativists today. Socrates successfully refuted Protagoras, demonstrating how his statement was false. Protagoras, in turn, conceded his argument to Socrates understanding the flaw that he had made. It is within the Christian hope today that we may see some of the same progress made within the understandings of people whom advocate these types of arguments against Absolute Truth today, so that the may begin to see what truth really is, and answer that all important question which Pilate asked Yeshua before being crucified. Yeshua states "I am the way the truth and the life, no one comes to the father except through me." in John 14:6. This statement alone gives an indication of absolute truth, and anything contrary to this understanding is against the Bible. Let us take a look at statements frequently given by people whom are in disagreement with truth today (even from some of the most brilliant people....don't let this startle you however. They might be smart in certain areas, but not in the area of Philosophy).
A relativist may make the claim "There is no absolute truth." However, there is a problem within this claim. This statement is being made in an absolute manner. If there is no absolute truth, this means that the statement that there is no absolute truth, would be an absolute truth in and of itself. If we wish to make the claim that the statement is not true..then of course its not true that there is no absolute truth. Thus this is a self stultifying argument that does not correspond to reality.
Other statements made frequently which are illogical include "Everything is relative" and "That may be true for you, but it is not true for me." Also "Truth is based on perspective." The famous, Friedrich Nietzsche was quoted as stating, "There are no facts, only interpretations." Others are "all sentences are meaningless" and "Logic does not correspond to reality." Also "You can't be certain about anything."
Lets take a look at these claims in turn. Everything is relative is a statement that is meant to be expressed in an absolute manner, since it encompasses Everything. This is a sweeping generalization and is also self refuting. If it is not absolute, then the statement everything is relative becomes something logically impossible, known as a infinite regress, since it would then be centered around an understanding encompassing that it must be relative to Sam. If its absolutely true for Sam, then its not relative, and we have successfully refuted Relativism. This cycle would continue to absurdity, thus we note that this is an argument which is a reductio ad absurdum.
The statement "That may be true for you, but it is not true for me" may be seen to be obvious. If this statement is true for you that what I"m believing is also true for you and for me...then what I am believing is not true. Thus it is not really true for me, and this statement and understanding is centered around fallacious logic.
"All sentences are meaningless" is a claim which begs the question.."Including this one?" Thus in order for this to be true, "all sentences are meaningless." is in fact a sentence that is meaningless..thus providing meaning to sentences.
"There are no facts, only interpretations" contains the same error. This statement being made is a statement of fact, thus must be seen as counter intuitive to an interpretation. This statement if not factual in its content allows for facts to actually exist, and if it is indeed true, becomes a fact itself, thus it is self refuting.
"You can't be certain about anything" is a claim that is centered around skeptical arguments, such as one particular Philosopher we will be looking at, David Hume, the leader of the skepticism of today's society. This statement commits the problematic structure within its outlook that if you can't be certain about anything, how can the skeptic be certain of this claim? If he can't be certain that we can't be certain about anything, then is self refuting as it violates the principle of noncontradiction. You can at least be certain of that. Augustine, as we will find out later, discovered this problem many centuries before David Hume came to this conclusion.
"Logic does not correspond to reality" is the final one we will look at for right now. I would encourage those who are interested in learning more about Epistemology and Metayphysics to take a peek at Dr. Glenn Miller's article. What can be seen from this sentence? It is a statement that is attempting to accord something to reality, thus it is an attempt to have something correspond to reality. What is this sentence utilizing? Since its coming to a conclusion, and is making a statement of "is" as opposed to "is not" it is implicitly utilizing the law of noncontradiction within the claim. What this statement is actually doing is implicitly arguing that the logic that it is utilizing does not correspond to reality. Thus, since this statement is utilizing logic, that would include the statement being made about reality. Hence, it is self refuting to make this claim.
This is the beginning of self stultifying claims. We will investigate how this applies to worldviews as we go into the understandings of different Philosophers in some articles to come. Also, be on the lookout for some interesting writings from an actual Scientist who is working in the field of Pharmacy (incidentally, having much to do with Pharmacology) in the weeks to come! Shalom and blessings.
No comments:
Post a Comment