# Reason: By Analogy or Ontology?



## JJF (Feb 8, 2006)

This post is kind of an offshoot from Dr. McMahon's post on Logic. I didn't want to detract from that thread. I'm also not sure if this post should be in this forum or the Apologetics forum. 

*Do humans reason ontologically or analogically?* 

Definitions: 

A. ontological: _We are capable of knowing truth exhaustively. _

B. analogical: _We are only capable of knowing truth by analogy, and therefore will never be able to have access to exhaustive truth. _ 

To me, A is impossible. I therefore say B is the correct answer. If A is impossible, then it seems foolish to argue that the use of logic by itself is capable of testing truth. In order for logic to be the say all of truth, then one, in my opinion, has to assert A. Otherwise, logic is rooted in something higher (God) than itself. Thus God is the source of all truth. 


[Edited on 16-2-06 by JJF]


----------



## Civbert (Feb 8, 2006)

> _Originally posted by JJF_
> ...
> *Do humans reason ontologically or analogically?*
> 
> ...



Why are these the only two options? Not only do they not seem to inscribe the universe of possible answers, neither seems to have any connection with reasoning for truth.

How can you justify your definitions? They seem to be conclusions to some sort of argument.

I've heard the claim that if one does not have total knowledge, then any particular knowledge claim is less then complete. This seems to presuppose knowledge is empirical. But empiricism is incoherent and results in no possible common knowledge or communication.

On the other hand, we have revelation. God explicitly gives us knowledge by revelation - which not only provides common knowledge, but presuppose the ability to have common knowledge with man and God. We have the mind of Christ. We have the same thoughts as God when we understand His revelation. The knowledge we possess, revealed by Scripture is univocally God's thoughts. Not analogously or ontologically, but simply logically.

I recommend: God and Logic by Gordon Clark.

and The Biblical View of Truth by John Robbins.

[Edited on 2-9-2006 by Civbert]


----------



## JJF (Feb 8, 2006)

> _Originally posted by JJF_
> ...
> *Do humans reason ontologically or analogically?*
> 
> ...



Why are these the only two options? Not only do they not seem to inscribe the universe of possible answers, neither seems to have any connection with reasoning for truth.

How can you justify your definitions? They seem to be conclusions to some sort of argument.[/quote]

I'm assuming that in order to know something truthfully, I have to have access to exhaustive truth, whether metaphysical or empirical. If I don't, then I need someone to mediate that truth. Thus, my only basis for any truth whatsoever has to be rooted in something that knows truth exhaustively. Doesn't Scripture say this? In short, I justify my answers by saying that Scripture makes this distinction. 



> I've heard the claim that if one does not have total knowledge, then any particular knowledge claim is less then complete. This seems to presuppose knowledge is empirical. But empiricism is incoherent and results in no possible common knowledge or communication.



I think it pressuposes that truth is revealed. There is a difference between empiricism and revelation. 



> On the other hand, we have revelation. God explicitly gives us knowledge by revelation - which not only provides common knowledge, but presuppose the ability to have common knowledge with man and God. We have the mind of Christ. We have the same thoughts as God when we understand His revelation. The knowledge we possess, revealed by Scripture is univocally God's thoughts. Not analogously or ontologically, but simply logically.



Logical claims are only true in so far as their premises are true. In order for you to be able to establish a true premise, then it seems to me that you would have to know truth onotogically. Or you could just establish your premise in God, who knows truth exhaustively, which is a much more trustworthy route; this type of reasoning is analogical. Now, I'm not saying that we don't know God truly; I'm just saying we don't (or will never) know him exhaustively. Scripture speaks to this matter, no?



> I recommend: God and Logic by Gordon Clark.
> 
> and The Biblical View of Truth by John Robbins.
> 
> [Edited on 2-9-2006 by Civbert]



I admit that I haven't read these books. Perhaps, I should remain silent until I do. I've only read Van Til's _Defense of the Faith_, and I'm aware that this book is only one part of the story in the Reformed Tradition. I'll look into buying these books. If I had to choose one , which one would you recommend?


----------



## Civbert (Feb 8, 2006)

> _Originally posted by JJF_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


OK. I agree.




> _Originally posted by JJF_
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'd say that we do not need exhaustive knowledge to know thinks univocally if our foundation or axiom is true. So we agree that revelation (Scripture) is the rational foundation for our knowledge - (I've also heard the phrase "first principle", but axiom is more precise I think).




> _Originally posted by JJF_
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Absolutely!




> _Originally posted by JJF_
> 
> 
> 
> ...



They are articles actually. For book I'd recommend is Religion, Reason, and Revelation and Three Types of Religious Philosophyby Gordon Clark.

I confess that I need to read Van Til's _Defense of the Faith_. I think Clark and Van Til had much in common - although I think Clark's explanations seem to be more complete (even systematic)- and his definitions clearer.

And I don't think you should remain silent until you read Clark or anyone else. This is the place to discuss and work these ideas out. Now if either one of us was claiming to be _the_ final authority on epistemology, then someone would be right to recommend we stop talking until we really were better qualified. However, this forum is a good place to learn by presenting ideas for comment and critiques, and returning the favor. (This forum is especially good for that since one can not be anonymous and so is more accountable.)


----------



## Puritanhead (Feb 8, 2006)

I think this is too narrow of a dichotomy... Not all people are even reasonable.

I've argued with people who make no sense whatsover. They embrace parataxic reasoning which consists of seeing causal relationship between events that occur at about the same time but which are not logically related.


----------



## JJF (Feb 8, 2006)

Anthony,

Oops. Sorry about that. I assumed those links were books. I'll read through those articles and I'll raise objections, if I have them, but, at this point, it looks like we agree a lot.


----------



## JJF (Feb 8, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> I think this is too narrow of a dichotomy... Not all people are even reasonable.
> 
> I've argued with people who make no sense whatsover. They embrace parataxic reasoning which consists of seeing causal relationship between events that occur at about the same time but which are not logically related.



Good point. Maybe the question would be better worded: Should man reason....or when man reasons properly does he reason...?

Does a change in the wording help?


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Feb 9, 2006)

JJ,

It's interesting that Anthony rejects analogical reasoning. Stick to your guns young man. It's the Reformed approach to faith and reason. Clark, bless his glorified heart and mind, was peddling Aquinas to us in Reformed clothes.

We don't need to interesect with the divine intellect to validate truth. God gave us revealed analogies, and, as Grandma used to say, "that's plenty."

Sorry to keep plugging my own work, but I wrote it to address this very issue. The Reformed orthodox specifically formulated their doctrine of analogical knowledge to avoid the very notions that Clark (and Hoeksema and others) taught and some many find attractive. 

See my essay, "Janus...." in this book

See also Horton's Covenant and Eschatology.

Faith accepts divinely revealed analogies, faith does not intersect with God's intellect. Faith does seek to be "as God" but "like God." Faith is content to be a creature and an IMAGE bearer (not the image maker) and not divine, not the least little bit.

rsc


----------



## JJF (Feb 9, 2006)

> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> JJ,
> 
> It's interesting that Anthony rejects analogical reasoning. Stick to your guns young man. It's the Reformed approach to faith and reason. Clark, bless his glorified heart and mind, was peddling Aquinas to us in Reformed clothes.
> ...



If Anthony rejects reasoning by analogy, and believes that we can intersect the divine intellect (ontology) to validate truth, then I would have to disagree with him. Did I misunderstand you Anthony? I thought you were in agreement with analogical reasoning.



> Sorry to keep plugging my own work, but I wrote it to address this very issue. The Reformed orthodox specifically formulated their doctrine of analogical knowledge to avoid the very notions that Clark (and Hoeksema and others) taught and some many find attractive.
> 
> See my essay, "Janus...." in this book
> 
> See also Horton's Covenant and Eschatology.



I've read Dr. Horton's book (an outstanding and insightful work that is marked by the highest standards of scholarship), but I haven't read your essay. I have, however, been wanting to purchase the other book that you mentioned for some time now. Thanks for the recommendation; I have some book money, so I'll probably buy it. 



> Faith accepts divinely revealed analogies, faith does not intersect with God's intellect. Faith does seek to be "as God" but "like God." Faith is content to be a creature and an IMAGE bearer (not the image maker) and not divine, not the least little bit.
> 
> rsc



Yes!


----------



## ChristianTrader (Feb 10, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> I'd say that we do not need exhaustive knowledge to know thinks univocally if our foundation or axiom is true. So we agree that revelation (Scripture) is the rational foundation for our knowledge - (I've also heard the phrase "first principle", but axiom is more precise I think).



You need more than true axiom(s) in order to be able to know or think univocally. For without exhaustive knowledge, you can (and do) easily run into antimonies. God has not revealed the solution to all antimonies, so we must just trust what he has revealed to us.

CT


----------



## Civbert (Feb 15, 2006)

> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Civbert_
> ...



I agree, you also need valid reasoning (logic). But if you run in to contradictions, all that tells you is you have a mistake in reasoning. And since one can not believe two contradictory statements, one will reject one and believe the other - there is not other choice. This is one way of testing our beliefs, by systematizing them. This is one reason for having systematic theology - to better understand the doctrines of Scripture. For Scripture is God's truths and if any doctrines we deduce from Scripture lead to contradictions, then we know we are mistaken in our doctrine. None of this entails exhaustive knowledge. If it did, we could not know anything at all. The test for contradiction can be done with logical forms and nothing more is required.


----------



## Civbert (Feb 15, 2006)

> _Originally posted by JJF_
> This post is kind of an offshoot from Dr. McMahon's post on Logic. I didn't want to detract from that thread. I'm also not sure if this post should be in this forum or the Apologetics forum.
> 
> *Do humans reason ontologically or analogically?*
> ...



I was reading Copi's Intro to logic and it described the method of formal logic as reasoning by analogy. This is interesting because I think we can test truth values simply by examining the forms of the arguments. A valid argument is one where the form of the conclusion is true each time the form of the premises are true. Basically, this is what Copi described as reasoning by analogy. And if we start with true premises, we can deduce true conclusions if we use correct forms. 

I generally consider an analogy of truth as one that is similar, but is not the real truth. But the Copi definition looks at analogy as a formal process for test the validity of arguments.

I agree with Copi, but what is interesting is this was not how either of us was using the term analogy. 

Goes to show how a change in definition can make a huge difference in your conclusions. In this case, I'd say yes, we do reason by analogy. But this is a different view of the term.

[Edited on 2-16-2006 by Civbert]


----------

