Christianity and logic
- Thread starter Scott
- Start date
- Status
WrittenFromUtopia
Puritan Board Graduate
Yes, about 40 posts ago. :bigsmile:
Magma2
Puritan Board Sophomore
While I want to agree with the above I still would like to know if we´re on the same page. Is rationality defined as being in conformity with the laws of logic (for Paul´s benefit, Aristotelian) or do you mean something else entirely? If you mean being in conformity with the laws of logic then when you say God is reason (minor point; I think you might have meant reason is God) wouldn´t this be the same as saying logic is God? If not, why not? Finally, if logic is God and this is a communicable attribute then wouldn´t logic be eternal and not created? Which brings me to your next point:
Forgive me if I was not clear, but you said:
"œAs far as the "laws" of Logic, I believe God "created" those as part of the temporal, corporeal creation, as immaterial, transcendental universals which man subsequently "discovered" through the reason which God projected into the minds of men in that creation."
Above you seem to be saying that logic (if that´s what you mean by rationality) is a communicable attribute. If that´s what you mean then I would agree, but if an attribute then the laws of logic are not created. The way I understood what you wrote above is that the laws of logic are created by God and are something men discover by virtue of also being created beings. It´s as if the laws of logic exist external from God out in the ether somewhere and on the other hand they are an attribute of God which are communicated to men by virtue of being created in His image. I don't see how you can have it both ways?
And, just so we´re clear (and because Paul is evidently getting paternal)
I´m not "œjumping" on you nor have I been. If it seems that way I apologize.
ChristianTrader
Puritan Board Graduate
I think that thinking about the incarnation could help some. Jesus, the second member of the trinity took on certain characteristics that were not essential to him. (He would still have been fully God if he never came down to earth). So one would have to acknowledge at least the possibility of created attributes that can be taken on, that are not essential.
Magma2
Puritan Board Sophomore
The dispute has been over the idea that logic is created. I don't think this is a definitional dispute. But your thinking that I'm "failing to *want* to understand" Gabe is imputing motives to me which you can't possibly know. I have chosen to ask him questions for clarification as we proceed. I agree I could have laid out his position, or what I thought was his position, and have him agree to it and the argue against him, but I chose not to do this since I get the impression that he isn't particularly clear on what his position is. In this case I think your preferred tactic might been perceived as trying to fabricate a straw man at best or bullying at worst. I'm not trying to trap the guy after all.
Of course, if you think this is a waste of 4 pages then perhaps you should bow out. From what I can tell we seem to be making progress and we might yet be of one mind on this point. OTOH you may be right and this is just a waste time and 4 pages.
[Edited on 5-11-2006 by Magma2]
WrittenFromUtopia
Puritan Board Graduate
Yes, God is eternally logical, or - better put - rational. He is not insane or contradictory, in other words. However, God does not "reason" using the "laws of logic" as finite human beings do, and must, because we must think in a finite, successive way. I wouldn't say God created the "Law of Noncontradiction" per se, but God communicated reason to man in the Creation, and we have "discovered" how to be reasonable; namely, in the form of the laws of logic, math, etc. Don't get me wrong, the laws of logic are not conventional, but they weren't written down in Scripture, either. While both God and man are rational, we do not use the same processes for rationality. God is eternally and immediately rational, while man must rationalize in succession and with finititude (is that a word?) -- in other words, the laws of logic. If we could be logical or rational the way God is ... well ...
WrittenFromUtopia
Puritan Board Graduate
So, basically, you'd rather be uncharitable, by not only not having a clear understanding of my position prior to engaging in this debate, but also resorting to ad hominem (I'm not clear on my own position, i.e. I'm stupid) against me?
WrittenFromUtopia
Puritan Board Graduate
Rationality is a communicable attribute, in the sense that man can acquire and use knowledge in a rational - logical - way. See Berkhof's chapter on the communicable attributes of God (which I quoted from above) for more detail of what I'm intended to convey. However, the "laws of logic" were not part of the Godhead, nor are they necessary for God to be rational. Why is this the case? As I have said and tried to emphasize, along with Berkhof who I find to be a reliable source of orthodox Reformed theology, God is eternal, and His rationality is immediate, eternal and non-successive. He does not need the laws of logic to be reasonable. Man, as finite and receiving the rationality after the image of God in Creation needs the laws of logic in order to be rational. We cannot just actualize reason in an eternal sense. It isn't just IS for us. We must think in succession, with finite limits, and this is expressed for us in what man has labeled the laws of logic. To think logically and non-contradictor-ally (I invent words, sorry) is to think how God in His very being IS, but we must do so within our own limits, necessitating the laws of logic. So, prior to the Creation (whenever THAT was), there was no necessity for the laws of logic, nor do I believe they "existed" just as there was no Algebra or Scientific Method in eternity prior to the Creation. God has no use for such things, being eternal.
Gabe,
I mostly agreed with your post directed at me but then this one confused me. It still seems like you are equating the "laws of logic" with deductive, inductive, and abductive reasoning. I don't think that God would have to reason ded., ind. or abductively due to the fact that He is omniscient. Thus it seems that these would not be necessary for God.
However, the "laws of logic" (Identity, LNC) seem to be necessary ontological states of affairs in all possible worlds (I would view these as being based on God's nature). Could God violate the laws of logic? Is He not subject to them (as I have defined them in the preceding sentence)?
Don
Ok guys, I think we're starting to make some headway, but let's please not let this discussion turn into personal attacks etc. Let's stick to the issue. I am interested in everyone's comments so far.
Don,
I appreciate your comments, I think your interaction on this thread has been helpful.
Paul,
I agree that people have not been using the terminology the same. Can we get some definitions on some of these terms? BTW, where exactly do YOU stand on this issue? I don't know that I can make it out from what you have posted (just guesses).
Gabriel,
I personally, would like to see some clarification on your post (especially the underlined portion):
Sean,
Would you argree that God does not think successively?
Don,
I appreciate your comments, I think your interaction on this thread has been helpful.
Paul,
I agree that people have not been using the terminology the same. Can we get some definitions on some of these terms? BTW, where exactly do YOU stand on this issue? I don't know that I can make it out from what you have posted (just guesses).
Gabriel,
I personally, would like to see some clarification on your post (especially the underlined portion):
Sean,
Would you argree that God does not think successively?
Magma2
Puritan Board Sophomore
1. The motives of man's heart are evil, continuously.
2. Sean has a man's heart.
3. Sean's motives are evil, continuously.
Scripturalism, at its finest!
1. Only God is able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.
2. Paul Manta is not God
3. Paul Manta is not able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.
Not sure what that means, but I suppose anything is to be preferred to Van Tilian newspeak.
As for Sudduth, hasn´t he stopped whining yet?
Yes, I don´t care about your attempts to make sure I´m understanding Gabe´s position, but I´m quite sure you´re endless Van Tilianese should have his head spinning at any moment. For what it's worth I´ve read some of your blogs and Dr. Robbins at his most terse and acerbic has nothing on you. Isn´t it funny that the things we dislike most in others often are feature most prominent in us. Sin is that way too. What was that you were saying about the heart?
Would you care to provide a couple of quotations from "œothers" who have denied the eternal omniscience of God? I´ve been following this thread pretty closely and I can´t believe I missed them?
Senses have a tendency to do that. Maybe you should rely less on them.
Magma2
Puritan Board Sophomore
Being unclear on one's own position and being stupid are two different things. I don´t think you´re stupid, but I still think your position is confused. Further, I don´t think I´ve been in the least bit uncharitable toward you. I´ve asked you questions in the hope that you might clarify your position, but, as I´ve mentioned, you have said things that certainly appear contradictory. Since I don´t play the Van Tilian mind-meld game where apparent contradictions magically disappear on the basis of nothing more than their say so (like a Van Tilian magic wand), some of the things you´ve said appear -- and still appear -- contradictory. To say that I don´t think you are clear on your own position is not an argument to the man, but to your position.
Here is another example of what I mean:
In order to calm Paul let me try and repeat back what you´ve just said in my own words. But first how about a definition so that Paul will be both calm and happy:
Logical; (1) : of, relating to, involving, or being in accordance with logic (2) : skilled in logic b : formally true or valid : ANALYTIC, DEDUCTIVE:
To think logically is to think like God thinks. To think logically necessitates the laws of logic. So far so good. The thoughts of God´s mind do not conform to the laws of logic. However, God is rational, but the laws of logic are not part of His eternal and immutable mind. OTOH, God´s rationality is a communicable attribute, but rationality in the Godhead does not necessitate the laws of logic. Therefore, I have no idea what this attribute is which is supposedly communicated to man?
OTOH I quite agree that God has no use for the scientific method since, while obviously useful for man, it is a tissue of logical fallacies and can provide no knowledge of anything at all. I guess you can say, no fallacy is of the truth. Or, to put it another way, if God has expressed his mind to us in Scripture by means of logical fallacies would we have any warrant to call God the Truth?
Don asks; "œCould God violate the laws of logic? Is He not subject to them . . . ?" It would seem He is. The Scriptures tell us that God cannot lie and no lie is of the truth. Further, since Paul is calm now (and presumably happy, although after this citation I´m sure he won´t be), let me provide a quote from Gordon Clark´s piece, God and Logic:
Anyway, I do think your position is still unclear, but since you seem to be taking this way too personal, and in my opinion Paul has sufficiently fanned that fire, I think I had better stop now. Again, I am sorry you thought I was being uncharitable toward you. That wasn´t my intent. My intent was to be helpful.
Magma2
Puritan Board Sophomore
Good stuff G.H. Clark!
It is good stuff. Amen. I did say I would bow out in my discussion with Gabe. You´re another story.
in my opinion you´re a smart man, but you would do well to spend less time reading your own blogs and read more Clark. Clark is easily the most important Christian thinker in modern times, arguably longer than that, and he was head and shoulders above his contemporaries in defending truth. Given your recent musings my guess is that you´d rather give that title to someone like Richard Pratt who also brings into doubt, with similar Vantilianese double-speak, whether or not the law of contradiction is an attribute of God´s mind revealed to us in Scripture and argues for limits in applying the law to theology. Pratt asserts; "œthe conformity of [some] biblical teachings to the law of contradiction may never be discerned by finite minds" [see, "œDoes God Observe the Law of Contradiction . . . Should We?"]. Of course, Pratt has no way of knowing this, but his point is clear, sometimes the law of contradiction must be abandon and logic must be curbed. Pratt continues:Notice, applying the law of contradiction to the Scriptures, at times, "œwill actually lead us into error." Further, it is our understanding of the law that will, per Pratt, inevitably fail us. Or, to put this same idea in Van Til´s own words, we are to "œembrace with passion the idea of the apparently contradictory." A better prescription for complete intellectual and theological suicide would be hard to find. There can be little doubt as to the root cause of the current justification controversy now plaguing P&R churches.
Regardless, this has been helpful for it seems clear from your remarks that you too think the laws of logic are the result of man made systems which may and often do contradict themselves (which explains why you were so gung-ho about charging the beach in defense of Gabe - can I hear a "œhoorah"!) . So let me ask, since you are correct and the various systems run into paradoxes and contradictions, which system do you employ when coming to the Scriptures? Would the answer be; whichever one enables you to reach your desired conclusion?
Since I agree G. H. Clark is "œgood stuff," why don´t I let Clark answer your question from the same piece I quoted above:
I suggest you read the rest of Clark´s argument. Beyond that, I give you the last word.
WrittenFromUtopia
Puritan Board Graduate
I'm a dangerous thinker.
Cheshire Cat
Puritan Board Sophomore
Come on guys! Logic is just "fluff", lol. Paul, I watched your debate with Derek Sansone the other day and you dominated every aspect of it.
Paul-
I don't understand what you are saying; I guess you are being sly and suggesting Clark's view requires no in-depth view, since his view is as pointless as non-existent beings. I guess I am a little slow.
You may remember that I am not a Clarkian. I just thought you would have the resource I wanted. Thanks anyways.
Nice to see you back on the PB by the way; hope you are doing well.
I haven't read through all this thread so if this has been addressed already, I apologize, but this is important point I want to make.
When we find an "apparent" contradiction in Scripture, we must resolve it. We can not "embrace" the contradiction.
By definition, a contradiction is two statements that can not be true at the same time. If one is true, the other MUST be false.
When we have two proposition we determine are contradictory, then we have can not believe both at the same time. Either we believe one, or the other. If we believe they are a contradiction, we in fact are saying we do not believe only one of the statements is true. We may admit that we do not know which is true, but we can not then say we believe both are true.
We must not leave contradictions unresolved. All of the Word is true, therefore, no false statement is Scripture. If we have two contradictory statements, then one is not Scripture. So to know Scripture requires us to resolve contradiction.
So we can not believe contradictions, and we have a duty as Christians to to resolve "apparent" contradictions so that we may know God's Word. "The wisdom of God" does not contain contradiction.
[Edited on 5-15-2006 by Civbert]
As a Clarkian, I make a distinction between the laws of logic, and the rules of logic (or more specifically, the rules of inference). The laws of logic are eternal forms of the state of things. It is "just IS" for us. The law of contradiction, excluded middle, identity, are the IS of logic. And that is the logic of God also, the same logic of man.
The rules of necessary inference has to do with the process of discovering eternal truths though rules of logical implication. This is the logic "that God does not need" in order to be rational. God still knows according to the "laws" of logic, but he does not employ the "rules of inference".
If all A is B,
and all B is C,
the necessary inference is all A is C.
Well all A is C was true before we made the inference. Even if we did not "know" the inference before we used the "rules" of inference to discover it, the "laws" of logic dictates that it is eternally true.
When we are thinking logically, we are discovering the relationships between things.
Creation uses the rules of inference to think logically - God does not reason in succession. He knows all A is C eternally. But the "laws" of logic are common to both God and man in order for man to think the things God already thinks. The "mode" of logic is different between God and man, but not the "laws" of logic.
ChristianTrader
Puritan Board Graduate
Why not? Unless you wish to make the argument that unless we can resolve it then we must say that it is an "actual" contradiction. Unless that argument is forthcoming I do not see the reason for your plea.
Alright but first one must affirm that a contradiction exists. The tension in an apparent contradiction can be relieved either by showing that the two propositions are not in fact contradiction given the background info or by introducing new propositions. The issue is whether one has the right to assume that the christian worldview has a problem if one is unable to work out fully the apparant contradictions. The answer is no.
And sinse we do not determine that two biblical propositions are contradictory, but only apparently contradictory, we should not have a problem.
Again your problem is with actual contradiction, since no one affirms that actual contradictions exist in scripture, we should have no disagreements.
We cannot know contradictions, but that says nothing about knowing things that only look like contradictions. Again until you marshall an argument that we have to consider apparant contradictions as equivalent to actual ones, there is nothing here to interact with.
CT
Why call something an apparent contradiction? Because the "apparent" meaning of two statements are actually contradictory. Maybe we don't know which statement is true and which is false because we are uncertain of the certain meaning of the statements, but if the apparent meaning of the statements is correct, they are contradictory.
In effect, there is no difference between an apparent and an actual contradiction. A contradiction is a contradiction. And when we think we have found a "apparent" contradiction, then the meaning of one statement is apparently false - and we do not believe both are true. It's impossible to believe two contradictory statements - apparent or otherwise. Once we understand that two statements are "apparent" contradictions, we in effect have determined that both can not be true.
(P.S. Edit)
The point is that if we can not "know" two contradictory statements are true, then we do not "believe" two contradictory statements are true. The fact that "apparent" contradictions "look" like contradictions means we do not believe both are true or we could not say it is an "apparent" contradictions. You can not believe two statements if you believe they are "apparently" contradictory.
[Edited on 5-16-2006 by Civbert]
Technically they are contrary. 3 and 5 are can not both be true, but both can be false. So I know that either 3 or 5 (or both) is false (this assumes no equivocation). Therefore I can not help but believe there is at least one false statement between 3 and 5.
Yes you do. You still have a contradiction with "It is morally wrong to stick needles in people's faces." The contradiction remains, you have merely shown that the statement was false. Sometimes it is morally correct to stick needles in people's faces.
This is not a satisfaction of man's mind, but of God's. We want to know what God's mind is on the matter. Since God does not contradict himself, then we know that when we think we have found a contradiction, then something is not right. God's word does not contain any contradiction. An apparent contradiction demonstrates that something that "appears" to be the meaning of Scripture is not Scripture. Something is false in our understanding - and we do not believe both statements are true as we understand them.
Adding more information (God's secrete council) could only make it clear what we misunderstand. But we need not wait until then to know that we misunderstand something when we find "apparent" contradictions.
This "pre-contrived scheme" you speak of is the scheme that Van Til affirmed as necessary to knowing God because God is logical. You can not "impose" on Scripture the laws of logic. You can only impose your misunderstanding on the teaching of Scripture. If ones understanding of Scripture entails contradictions, then one misunderstands what Scripture teaches.
Nice.
Huh?? To many negatives!
But you did so by showing the premise 3 was false. Not by "embracing" premise 3 is true. True is: not all times is it immoral to stick a needle in a person's face.
The "problem of evil" is not resolved by the premise. The added premise only helps us see what premises are not true.
Yeah. Well basically, you are correcting a misunderstanding of what you thought Scripture meant. You can not reverse a contradiction with an additional premise. And if the contradiction is "apparent", then you must mean it is not the Scriptures that are contrary, but your apparent understanding of it's meaning that is contradictory. Bingo! "We might not understand". A clear contradiction is impossible. Clearly contrary or contradictory premises are not the teaching of Scripture.
However, I will give you a chance to show me otherwise by giving two "clear" and contradictory teachings of Scripture, both of which you believe are true. Show me how it is possible for you to believe they are "apparently" contradictions and are both true at the same time.
Of course, if you resolve the problem, you must change what you think Scripture means. If you don't resolve it, you believe that Scripture teaches contradictions. Or not if you're right you can show me two teaching of Scripture that you apparently believe can not both be true, but you believe are both true.
[Edited on 5-16-2006 by Civbert]
Honestly, I'm still waiting to encounter a Clarkian that doesn't turn me off with their approach to things like the above. While I find you guys generally very warm and Christian in other areas of the Board I find your approach pointlessly obnoxious and obtuse here for the sake of terminology. It's the same reason John Robbins turns me off.
Witness the analogy Paul gave:
3) It is morally wrong to stick needles in people's faces.
4) George stuck a needle in Tom's face.
5) George was not immoral for sticking a needle in Tom's face.
It was true as far as it went without modification. Even after Paul added that George was a dentist, you inferred from 3) that the statement declares it is immoral for all people. You offered to Paul that 3) and 5) are then still contradictory. But 3), in fact, does not have to be inferred to mean all people. People who are not dental patients are still "people". You prove Paul's point in fact about apparent contradictions by creating another one. In your haste to "fix" his analogy (instead of giving a fair hearing) you show how somebody can assume contradictions that don't necessarily exist.
Even if the analogy could have been more perfectly stated: Who cares? It's a silly analogy. You fight battles to the death on hills that have no strategic value. Give some ground dude!
You could have merely looked at the three statements and, being charitable and agreeable, understood with what he was trying to state. Give the three sentences to 100 people. Over 90 percent of them would conclude a logical contradiction. Paul knows it isn't because he's witholding information. The other 10 percent would view this as a riddle and might even figure out that anasthesea is to be administered.
He calls it an apparent contradiction because of how it is processed and perceived. You don't want to deal with the term in the way its used but, rather, want to haggle over the use of the terms "apparent" contradiction.
You just want Paul to talk the same way you do and call it something else, but you still cannot remove the mystery any more than he can to things that God has not fully revealed to us. Or maybe Clarkians have plummed the depths of all Biblical mysteries?
If you want to be received better then admit agreements where you can. I say tomato you say tomahto.
[Edited on 5-16-2006 by SemperFideles]
Witness the analogy Paul gave:
3) It is morally wrong to stick needles in people's faces.
4) George stuck a needle in Tom's face.
5) George was not immoral for sticking a needle in Tom's face.
It was true as far as it went without modification. Even after Paul added that George was a dentist, you inferred from 3) that the statement declares it is immoral for all people. You offered to Paul that 3) and 5) are then still contradictory. But 3), in fact, does not have to be inferred to mean all people. People who are not dental patients are still "people". You prove Paul's point in fact about apparent contradictions by creating another one. In your haste to "fix" his analogy (instead of giving a fair hearing) you show how somebody can assume contradictions that don't necessarily exist.
Even if the analogy could have been more perfectly stated: Who cares? It's a silly analogy. You fight battles to the death on hills that have no strategic value. Give some ground dude!
You could have merely looked at the three statements and, being charitable and agreeable, understood with what he was trying to state. Give the three sentences to 100 people. Over 90 percent of them would conclude a logical contradiction. Paul knows it isn't because he's witholding information. The other 10 percent would view this as a riddle and might even figure out that anasthesea is to be administered.
He calls it an apparent contradiction because of how it is processed and perceived. You don't want to deal with the term in the way its used but, rather, want to haggle over the use of the terms "apparent" contradiction.
You just want Paul to talk the same way you do and call it something else, but you still cannot remove the mystery any more than he can to things that God has not fully revealed to us. Or maybe Clarkians have plummed the depths of all Biblical mysteries?
If you want to be received better then admit agreements where you can. I say tomato you say tomahto.
[Edited on 5-16-2006 by SemperFideles]
No, it was Paul who said that there was an apparent contradiction here, I merely agreed. I did not create the contradiction, I assumed Paul was being truthful in saying the statements were contradictory.
The only way Paul can claim the statements appear to be contradictions is if the "apparent meaning" of the statement 3 is at all times it is morally wrong to stick needles in people's faces. Clearly is does not mean "sometimes" it is morally wrong to stick needles in people's faces. That is not an apparent contradiction.
Aside: In logic there are only four forms of statement: All, Some, Some not, and No. Statement 3 must mean logically - "at all times...", "at some times...", "at some times not...", or "at no time...". Since Paul said the statements were contradictions, then the logical meaning must have been "at all times". No other understanding of 3) would "appear" to contradict 5).
My point is, you can not go from an "apparent" contradiction, to no contradiction without changing the meaning of statement 3). This is true for any "apparent" contradiction. Either statement 3) is equivocation, or the contradiction is not apparent at all. And the subject is Scripture and God's mind. God does not equivocate.
And the more important point is, if something is an "apparent" contradiction, it is because we read the meaning of two statements as being contradictions. And so we must believe one or the other, but not both. You can not believe two apparent contradictions because they "appear" to contradict.
- Status
