Frame and Logic
- Thread starter natewood3
- Start date
- Status
Clark justifies all things he knows from the axiom of Scripture. Otherwise, Scripture would not be his Axiom. And so he justifies saying "God is logic" because of Scripture. I'll try to find the relevant quotes from Clark - but if you want to understand Clark, you need to understand how Clark's presuppositionalism is axiomatic. The Axiom is the first principle from which knowledge follows. And any knowledge that a worldview purports to justify, must be rooted in the axioms of that worldview. "God is logic" is not the Axiom, so it must be justified by the Axiom if it is knowledge.
Darn. I was starting to like some of what Clark had to say. If God is Logic is only justifiably axiomatically then I don't think I like him too much after all.
I'm going back to lurking in this forum. I haven't devoted enough attention to the subject to argue confidently.
I'm going back to lurking in this forum. I haven't devoted enough attention to the subject to argue confidently.
Civbert,
Thanks for responding to what I said. I will try to do the same and keep it short.
An atheistic worldview is not justified in his use of the laws of logic. I do not deny that all worldviews use logic. That is not the argument; they just cannot justify the use of any universal laws. An immaterial, universal, unchanging law cannot come from a changing and material universe. You must also have a personal, absolute God to have an obligation to follow such laws.
I agree logic is an attribute of God. However, could there be such a thing as universal laws of morality that were unchanging and universal if God did not exist? I do not believe there can be. There may be laws that everyone follows, but they are arbitrary and subjective. In the same way, we are logical because we are created in the image of God. If there is no God, that is not true. Hence, how can we be logical without the One that deems all facts intelligible?
I asked, How is logic not the beginning of all knowledge and wisdom in your view, and you said:
You must have logic to even have meaning though! If there is no logic, there is no meaning. Hence, you seem to say that logic, not God, is the beginning of knowledge. This is why I say that without God, there is no intelligibility.
So believing in any worldview takes blind faith? You say all worldviews have "axioms" that they assume to be true, but they cannot be proven. I reply that all other worldviews have no justification for trusting or believing anything because they do not assume the God of the Bible as their ultimate standard of truth. All other worldviews that do not assume the Bible as their ultimate presupposition are arbitrary and incoherent. The only coherence they do have is because of the fact that in their heart they know the God of the Bible exists because they are in His image.
I agree that all worldviews can be defeated by assuming their position and showing their arbitrariness, incoherence, and absurdity. However, the Bible, which is my ultimate presupposition, tells me that you are either a believer who has been renewed in his mind, or you are an unbeliever who supresses the truth of God and assumes the principles of the world. You either accept the Scriptures as the ultimate standard of knowledge or you don't. From the standpoint of the Christian worldview, no other worldview can justify knowledge, universal laws, etc., etc. Therefore, Christianity is the only true worldview because of the impossibility of the contrary. Christianity is the only possible true worldview because God's Word would attest to that. If I say the Scriptures are my ultimate standard, how can I even begin to affirm that other worldviews MAY be true?
In regards to the Bahnsen quote I gave, that was his closing statement.
So what is the point of apologetics? How are we really defending the faith against anything if we cannot know for certain that the Bible is truly the Word of God and Christianity is the only possible worldview, except subjectively?
If we take Scripture as our ultimate standard, I do not see any way to deny that Christianity is the only possible true worldview. If what God says is true, then there is no other God besides the God of the Scripture. If that is the case, there are no other worldviews that are possibly true. I don't need to test all worldviews because Scripture tells me that they are all futile and vain and supress the truth of God.
Given that Christianity is true? You have said it is possible that it isn't true! There is a valid excuse, and that is it may not be the case that Christianity is true. Why would anyone want to accept a worldview that is possibly false?
You speak of begging the question, but you just seemed to imply that the unbeliever has no reason for not accept Christian worldview as truth because the Christian worldview says so! I agree, but I do not see how you can use that type of argument.
You obviously believe our ultimate standards of truth are unable to be proven, which means that it may be that Scripture is not true, since we cannot prove it one way or the other. Again, if no worldview can be proven to be right or wrong, why even do apologetics? Just arbitrarily accept Christianity as truth and don't bother with giving an answer to those who ask about our hope, because our hope may very well be no hope at all...
Thanks for responding to what I said. I will try to do the same and keep it short.
An atheistic worldview is not justified in his use of the laws of logic. I do not deny that all worldviews use logic. That is not the argument; they just cannot justify the use of any universal laws. An immaterial, universal, unchanging law cannot come from a changing and material universe. You must also have a personal, absolute God to have an obligation to follow such laws.
I agree logic is an attribute of God. However, could there be such a thing as universal laws of morality that were unchanging and universal if God did not exist? I do not believe there can be. There may be laws that everyone follows, but they are arbitrary and subjective. In the same way, we are logical because we are created in the image of God. If there is no God, that is not true. Hence, how can we be logical without the One that deems all facts intelligible?
I asked, How is logic not the beginning of all knowledge and wisdom in your view, and you said:
You must have logic to even have meaning though! If there is no logic, there is no meaning. Hence, you seem to say that logic, not God, is the beginning of knowledge. This is why I say that without God, there is no intelligibility.
So believing in any worldview takes blind faith? You say all worldviews have "axioms" that they assume to be true, but they cannot be proven. I reply that all other worldviews have no justification for trusting or believing anything because they do not assume the God of the Bible as their ultimate standard of truth. All other worldviews that do not assume the Bible as their ultimate presupposition are arbitrary and incoherent. The only coherence they do have is because of the fact that in their heart they know the God of the Bible exists because they are in His image.
I agree that all worldviews can be defeated by assuming their position and showing their arbitrariness, incoherence, and absurdity. However, the Bible, which is my ultimate presupposition, tells me that you are either a believer who has been renewed in his mind, or you are an unbeliever who supresses the truth of God and assumes the principles of the world. You either accept the Scriptures as the ultimate standard of knowledge or you don't. From the standpoint of the Christian worldview, no other worldview can justify knowledge, universal laws, etc., etc. Therefore, Christianity is the only true worldview because of the impossibility of the contrary. Christianity is the only possible true worldview because God's Word would attest to that. If I say the Scriptures are my ultimate standard, how can I even begin to affirm that other worldviews MAY be true?
In regards to the Bahnsen quote I gave, that was his closing statement.
So what is the point of apologetics? How are we really defending the faith against anything if we cannot know for certain that the Bible is truly the Word of God and Christianity is the only possible worldview, except subjectively?
If we take Scripture as our ultimate standard, I do not see any way to deny that Christianity is the only possible true worldview. If what God says is true, then there is no other God besides the God of the Scripture. If that is the case, there are no other worldviews that are possibly true. I don't need to test all worldviews because Scripture tells me that they are all futile and vain and supress the truth of God.
Given that Christianity is true? You have said it is possible that it isn't true! There is a valid excuse, and that is it may not be the case that Christianity is true. Why would anyone want to accept a worldview that is possibly false?
You speak of begging the question, but you just seemed to imply that the unbeliever has no reason for not accept Christian worldview as truth because the Christian worldview says so! I agree, but I do not see how you can use that type of argument.
You obviously believe our ultimate standards of truth are unable to be proven, which means that it may be that Scripture is not true, since we cannot prove it one way or the other. Again, if no worldview can be proven to be right or wrong, why even do apologetics? Just arbitrarily accept Christianity as truth and don't bother with giving an answer to those who ask about our hope, because our hope may very well be no hope at all...
And I'm not really confident about that. Because every worldview is possibly false. Each of us has a worldview that we believe is true - but unless you are God, you can not know they are not mistaken. If Christianity is true, then only by God's will, will you hold to that worldview - but you will not know perfectly until we are with Him in heaven. And if there is no God, then you'll never know.
We do apologetics to defend our faith against the arguments of those who wish to invalidate our faith by arguing that its incoherent or unprovable. We can show the Christianity is not only fully coherent and rational, but that these opponents can not prove their own worldviews either. Their worldviews are not only unprovable, but can usually be show to be internally incoherent. We defend the perfect reasonableness and soundness and even the beauty of the Christian worldview.
But apologetics is not how people are saved. People are saved by faith, and this by hearing the Gospel and receiving the faith as a free and prefect gift from God. Our belief in the Gospel is never a product of logical arguments. And fallacious arguments can only hinder the work of the Spirit.
Logical arguments and perfect reasoning will never convince anyone of the truth of Scripture - proofs and arguments will always fall short of proving the truth of Christianity. And so the ultimate belief in the truth of Christianity always starts with saving faith - and that is a gift from God. This is consistent with what we know from Scripture, but it is also consistent with logic because all worldviews start with a faith in their axioms - axioms that can not be proven but are presumed true. And we know as Christians that our choice is really God's gift of saving faith.
My hope is not in my apologetics - and not in the arguments that anyone can produce - my hope is in Christ alone. That is the only hope we have to offer the world - Christ, and him crucified.
[Edited on 3-10-2006 by Civbert]
Ron
Puritan Board Freshman
Nate,
For something to be true, it must intersect the mind of God. Does God know the Christian worldview as "possibly false?" Of course he doesn't.
Do you see the contradiction here, Don? How can that proposition be known as true? The statement presupposes it's own truth value of a worldview, which incorporates God as being the One who knows which worldview is true.
Nobody has revealed this to him. It's just an opinion. Moreoever, you and I know that we already know our worldview is correct. If we don't know this by God's revelation, we certainly will not know it when we're in
Heaven.
Ron
I'm assuming that if any worldview can be known true, then God knows it. But then I was speaking hypothetically, that is, if there is a God. But since the existence of God is entailed by our worldview, then we can not know if there is a God independent of presuming a worldview. Any proof of God would beg the question by presuming God exists according to my worldview.
Ron
Puritan Board Freshman
It begs no question at all. I'm stepping into your belief system where God knows that the Christian worldview is true. Accordingly, if something is true in your system, it cannot also be possibly false. If you wish to deny your own worldview and say that you don't know whether God knows the Christian worldview is true, then fine, we'll ask whether God knows that the true worldview is possibly false. Same answer! Not all worldviews can be possibly false.
Ron
Puritan Board Freshman
Given what you just said, then all proof begs the question for proof presupposes things that you call "axioms" which you believe are unproveable because you reject all circular reasoning. Consequently, your position is arbitrary and inconsistent for it asserts true premises that cannot be demonstrated as true. You're forever learning and never coming to a cogent defense of what you believe.
Ron
Ron
Puritan Board Freshman
Nate,
Again, you and I know that our worldview is correct. If we don't know this by God's revelation, we certainly will not know it when we're in Heaven. If we can only know this in Heaven, why do you suppose we can't know it now? Will an appeal to revelation no longer be fallacious in Heaven? It's obvious, to me anyway, where C-B got tripped up. He doesn't accept circular reasoning. However, he's now taken this one step further. He has now denied that we can know (not prove but know!) that the Christian worldview is true, which is more than denying circular reasoning to prove what we know apart from discursive reasoning; it is to deny a knowledge of his axiom! Would Clark have done this?! How can any Christian take issue with: "For something to be true, it must intersect the mind of God. Does God know the Christian worldview as "possibly false?" Of course he doesn't."
Ron
Again, you and I know that our worldview is correct. If we don't know this by God's revelation, we certainly will not know it when we're in Heaven. If we can only know this in Heaven, why do you suppose we can't know it now? Will an appeal to revelation no longer be fallacious in Heaven? It's obvious, to me anyway, where C-B got tripped up. He doesn't accept circular reasoning. However, he's now taken this one step further. He has now denied that we can know (not prove but know!) that the Christian worldview is true, which is more than denying circular reasoning to prove what we know apart from discursive reasoning; it is to deny a knowledge of his axiom! Would Clark have done this?! How can any Christian take issue with: "For something to be true, it must intersect the mind of God. Does God know the Christian worldview as "possibly false?" Of course he doesn't."
Ron
First your original statement is a response to a quote of mine saying "all worldviews are possibly false". That statement was made without presupposing the any particular worldview. If you don't presuppose any worldview, then all worldviews are possible false. So you're saying does God think Christianity is possible false begs the question since it presuppose the Christian worldview. Any Muslim can say: "does God know the Islam worldview as possibly false? Of course he doesn't!"
I can't ask God which worldview He knows is true, because that begs the question that God exists. Hypothetically, if He does exist, then He knows the true worldview. But we can only speak hypothetically to avoid begging the question since God's existence is a key part of a worldview. And it's trivial to say God knows the true worldview speaking from within any of the many possible worldviews that include an omniscient god - so that doesn't help us either. From within many worldviews, it's trivial; from outside of worldviews it begs the question.
No, only circular arguments, and arguments with key premises that are in need of justification just as much as the conclusion - are "question begging" arguments. I'm saying all proofs of worldviews are begging the question, as well as proofs of the existence of God.
No rational mind will accept circular reasoning as a proof. Take the following.
My domestic feline enjoys poultry.
Last Friday I saw a movies.
When ever the alarm goes off, I wake up.
Therefore: My cat likes chicken.
There, I have proven my cat likes chicken. It's formally valid, and all my premises are true (like the TAG). Therefore my conclusion is proven? I don't think so.
All men are mortal,
Socrates was a man,
therefore Socrates was mortal.
That is a valid syllogism, non-circular - and proof of the mortality of Socrates.
[Edited on 3-14-2006 by Civbert]
That's
. No apology necessary. Theses post's are not going anywhere, but you've got to keep to you school and sermon schedule. Take your time.
The only danger is my burying your posts with more replies and comments.
But then I think you should feel free to jump in at any time. There's no obligation to read an entire thread - it's not like these posts have the weight of doctrine or any authority. Many things are more important to read, I'm just happy to discuss these things with you and others as they come along.
Ron
Puritan Board Freshman
Best of Providence, Civbert.
Nate, I trust you see how convoluted Civbert's reasoning. Take particular note of what he avoids in my posts, like his alleged ability to know in Heaven what he cannot know now about the truth of the Christian worldview. Also, take note of his inability to understand that sound argumentation need not persuade, otherwise sound arguments would be contingent upon the presuppositions of another as opposed to absolute form and truth, which reduces his criteria to subjectivism and, therefore, skepticism. Notice how he thinks that "non-circular" proof is not circular in what it presupposes at the axiom level in order to have what he thinks is a linear proof that does not "beg" crucial questions! In other words, notice how he presupposes in an unspoken yet circular manner that which is transcendental to his syllogisms! Finally, notice how he thinks that the following argument takes a valid form: "My domestic feline enjoys poultry. Last Friday I saw a movies.When ever the alarm goes off, I wake up.Therefore: My cat likes chicken.There, I have proven my cat likes chicken. It's formally valid, and all my premises are true (like the TAG). Therefore my conclusion is proven? I don't think so."
In a word, simply notice how Civbert opposes himself with every word he utters. Don't judge all "Clarkians" by his inability to discuss the very basics of logic and philosophy.
Ron
Nate, I trust you see how convoluted Civbert's reasoning. Take particular note of what he avoids in my posts, like his alleged ability to know in Heaven what he cannot know now about the truth of the Christian worldview. Also, take note of his inability to understand that sound argumentation need not persuade, otherwise sound arguments would be contingent upon the presuppositions of another as opposed to absolute form and truth, which reduces his criteria to subjectivism and, therefore, skepticism. Notice how he thinks that "non-circular" proof is not circular in what it presupposes at the axiom level in order to have what he thinks is a linear proof that does not "beg" crucial questions! In other words, notice how he presupposes in an unspoken yet circular manner that which is transcendental to his syllogisms! Finally, notice how he thinks that the following argument takes a valid form: "My domestic feline enjoys poultry. Last Friday I saw a movies.When ever the alarm goes off, I wake up.Therefore: My cat likes chicken.There, I have proven my cat likes chicken. It's formally valid, and all my premises are true (like the TAG). Therefore my conclusion is proven? I don't think so."
In a word, simply notice how Civbert opposes himself with every word he utters. Don't judge all "Clarkians" by his inability to discuss the very basics of logic and philosophy.
Ron
Ron,
I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, but you keep trying to discredit me personally with assertions and ad hominems. I don't like to point out these kinds of fallacies, but since you are targeting me personally with these comments, I feel I must do this. I'm sorry if this embarrasses you but if you continue using these poor tactics in place of sound logic, then I will call you on them.
Logic 101:
Some (unsound arguments) are not (persuasive arguments)
-- does not imply --
All (persuasive arguments) are (sound arguments)
Did you follow that, it was a bit convoluted? He's saying that my sound and valid proof of the mortality of Socrates is circular because it depends on unspoken axioms. But I'm not trying to prove my axioms. That would be circular. And since "Socrates was a man", and "all men are mortal" are acceptable premises, no question begging has occurred. Question begging implies a dishonest argument - one which tries to slip a questionable premise into the argument - a premise which is simply the conclusion reworded, or a premise that demands just as much justification as the conclusion.
Presupposing at the axiom level is another way of saying "presuppositionalism". As I said, all worldviews start with axioms (presuppositions - this is Clark 101). Ron would have us believe now that "all arguments" are circular along with all worldviews (this is not even worthy of Van Til). But he is wrong on both counts. Circular arguments only occur when you try to prove your *conclusion* by assume it as a premises.
Logic 101: With circular arguments, the "implication" itself is trivially true because A implies A (this is logic's Law of Identity) - but we have still failed to give an argument for the truth of A itself. We have merely assumed A and given a tautological argument for A. A proof can only follow from premises which are "a priori" truths. A truth can not be logical prior to itself, so one does not prove a truth by asserting it as one of the premises of an argument.
Technically speaking, proofs follow from axioms. I did not state my axioms in the Socrates proof, they were assumed - I am assuming also that the reader shares the same axioms. Since the axioms were not the conclusion of the proof, the proof still stands as valid and sound. The only problems occurs when attempting to prove axioms.
Red herring, but I'll bite.
Logic 101 again. The form of the argument.
A(ab) [my cat likes chicken]
A(cd) [...]
A(xy) [...]
:. A(ab) [my cat likes chicken]
which can be shortened to
A(ab) -> A(ab). [ my cat likes chicken implies my cat likes chicken]
It's red herring because it distracts from the point - that circular arguments are not proofs.
False accusation and abuse ad hominem. It's statements like these that motivate me to give you these public spankings. I've taken you to school on this, and if you want to keep up the abuse and ad hominems, then I will have to continue to embarrass you with your own words. I suggest you avoid these kinds of statements in the future and we can have some reasonable discussions.
I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, but you keep trying to discredit me personally with assertions and ad hominems. I don't like to point out these kinds of fallacies, but since you are targeting me personally with these comments, I feel I must do this. I'm sorry if this embarrasses you but if you continue using these poor tactics in place of sound logic, then I will call you on them.
Abuse ad hominem. Do you really want to go there? We can revisit your post on the TAG argument if you want an example of convoluted reasoning.
There's a difference between avoiding and ignoring - some things are not worth the effort. But if you want to know - according to my worldview - Christianity - many things will be made clear to me when I am with Him in heaven. When I am in heaven, all my presuppositions will be confirmed by God. This is trivial - it follows linearly from my presuppositions. It does not prove my worldview or imply my worldview is true.
Strawman. I never said any argument "needs" to be persuasive to be sound. I said circular arguments (and other unsound arguments) are not persuasive.
Logic 101:
Some (unsound arguments) are not (persuasive arguments)
-- does not imply --
All (persuasive arguments) are (sound arguments)
Building on the strawman - therefore irrelevant. Also convoluted.
Did you follow that, it was a bit convoluted? He's saying that my sound and valid proof of the mortality of Socrates is circular because it depends on unspoken axioms. But I'm not trying to prove my axioms. That would be circular. And since "Socrates was a man", and "all men are mortal" are acceptable premises, no question begging has occurred. Question begging implies a dishonest argument - one which tries to slip a questionable premise into the argument - a premise which is simply the conclusion reworded, or a premise that demands just as much justification as the conclusion.
Presupposing at the axiom level is another way of saying "presuppositionalism". As I said, all worldviews start with axioms (presuppositions - this is Clark 101). Ron would have us believe now that "all arguments" are circular along with all worldviews (this is not even worthy of Van Til). But he is wrong on both counts. Circular arguments only occur when you try to prove your *conclusion* by assume it as a premises.
Logic 101: With circular arguments, the "implication" itself is trivially true because A implies A (this is logic's Law of Identity) - but we have still failed to give an argument for the truth of A itself. We have merely assumed A and given a tautological argument for A. A proof can only follow from premises which are "a priori" truths. A truth can not be logical prior to itself, so one does not prove a truth by asserting it as one of the premises of an argument.
Technically speaking, proofs follow from axioms. I did not state my axioms in the Socrates proof, they were assumed - I am assuming also that the reader shares the same axioms. Since the axioms were not the conclusion of the proof, the proof still stands as valid and sound. The only problems occurs when attempting to prove axioms.
(see above for my answer) There is nothing circular about presupposing axioms - only in trying to prove them. And any "transcendental" characteristics of my axioms are irrelevant.
Red herring, but I'll bite.
Logic 101 again. The form of the argument.
A(ab) [my cat likes chicken]
A(cd) [...]
A(xy) [...]
:. A(ab) [my cat likes chicken]
which can be shortened to
A(ab) -> A(ab). [ my cat likes chicken implies my cat likes chicken]
It's red herring because it distracts from the point - that circular arguments are not proofs.
False accusation and abuse ad hominem. It's statements like these that motivate me to give you these public spankings. I've taken you to school on this, and if you want to keep up the abuse and ad hominems, then I will have to continue to embarrass you with your own words. I suggest you avoid these kinds of statements in the future and we can have some reasonable discussions.
Civbert,
Everyone of us has a worldview that we "believe" is true or "know" is true? There is obviously a difference. I believe the Bible would tell us that we can "know" that Christianity is true, not just "believe" it is true. We can not only be confident, we can also be certain that it is true. It seems that you want people to accept Christianity on the basis of faith, including Christians. I agree that we must believe, but is it rational to believe in something that we cannot know is true? That is an honest question...
You say we do apologetics to defend Christianity against those who say it is incoherent or UNPROVABLE? It sounds very arbitrary in my thinking to say we should accept Christianity even though it is unprovable. Is it not unprovable to say that God does not exist? Why should I not accept that proposition?
I assume you are a Calvinist, as I myself am. Hence, I understand how a person comes to faith, and it is definitely not by logical arguments. If the Holy Spirit is not involved in our apologetic encounters, the person will NOT be persuaded. I am also not sure if I would say that our arguments can "hinder" the Holy Spirit...
I again agree that no one can coming to believe the truth of Christianity unless the Spirit opens their eyes, but we are to argue for the truth, i.e., certainty of Christianity, regardless of whether or not they are persuaded. God will use that encounter to open eyes to the truth or harden their heart and thereby increase the condemnation. I do not think our apologetic encounters can be "hindered" if the Word of God is proclaimed, for His Word will accomplish all that it sets out to accomplish.
My hope is not in apologetics either, but you seem to want people to simply have blindly trust that the Christian worldview is right. The apostles seemed to believe that we could prove the certainty of Christianity. If we cannot, I see no reason why anyone should accept it.
Everyone of us has a worldview that we "believe" is true or "know" is true? There is obviously a difference. I believe the Bible would tell us that we can "know" that Christianity is true, not just "believe" it is true. We can not only be confident, we can also be certain that it is true. It seems that you want people to accept Christianity on the basis of faith, including Christians. I agree that we must believe, but is it rational to believe in something that we cannot know is true? That is an honest question...
You say we do apologetics to defend Christianity against those who say it is incoherent or UNPROVABLE? It sounds very arbitrary in my thinking to say we should accept Christianity even though it is unprovable. Is it not unprovable to say that God does not exist? Why should I not accept that proposition?
I assume you are a Calvinist, as I myself am. Hence, I understand how a person comes to faith, and it is definitely not by logical arguments. If the Holy Spirit is not involved in our apologetic encounters, the person will NOT be persuaded. I am also not sure if I would say that our arguments can "hinder" the Holy Spirit...
I again agree that no one can coming to believe the truth of Christianity unless the Spirit opens their eyes, but we are to argue for the truth, i.e., certainty of Christianity, regardless of whether or not they are persuaded. God will use that encounter to open eyes to the truth or harden their heart and thereby increase the condemnation. I do not think our apologetic encounters can be "hindered" if the Word of God is proclaimed, for His Word will accomplish all that it sets out to accomplish.
My hope is not in apologetics either, but you seem to want people to simply have blindly trust that the Christian worldview is right. The apostles seemed to believe that we could prove the certainty of Christianity. If we cannot, I see no reason why anyone should accept it.
Ron,
These we my thoughts, just you put them in a more eloquent manner than I could have.
My thought was simply that Civbert does not seem to believe that any ultimate standard or presuppositions can be demonstrated or proven as true. Hence, this must mean that they could be possibly false. This simply leads to saying that we must accept everything arbitrarily, because we cannot know anything for sure. I know you have said this already, but it leads to skepticism. I see no other place it could lead.
I must agree. If we must avoid circular reasoning, then we cannot prove anything because to appeal to our ultimate standard for proving things would seemingly beg the question for Civbert. I do not understand how Civbert would argue with an unbeliever...
I will respond more later...
These we my thoughts, just you put them in a more eloquent manner than I could have.
My thought was simply that Civbert does not seem to believe that any ultimate standard or presuppositions can be demonstrated or proven as true. Hence, this must mean that they could be possibly false. This simply leads to saying that we must accept everything arbitrarily, because we cannot know anything for sure. I know you have said this already, but it leads to skepticism. I see no other place it could lead.
I must agree. If we must avoid circular reasoning, then we cannot prove anything because to appeal to our ultimate standard for proving things would seemingly beg the question for Civbert. I do not understand how Civbert would argue with an unbeliever...
I will respond more later...
"Believe" and "know" are certainly not the same, but in everyday usage we tend to use them interchangeable. When I say "know" in this discussion, I am using a philosophical definition - justified true belief - rather than the common definition - to believe with certainty. I agree that the Bible teaches that we can be certain about the truths of Christianity. We can even give valid sound argument for the propositions which make up the doctrines of Christianity - but only from within the scope of the Christian worldview which is defined by the Axiom of Scripture. But the axiom of Scripture must be assumed true for the truths of Christianity to be justified true beliefs.
It is not only rational to "believe" something we can not "know" (justify true), but it is necessary. For us to know anything logically, we must first assume some starting point from which we can justify what we know. But since the starting point of knowledge can not be justified itself (how can we know it is true if we can not know anything prior to it logically), then we believe it on faith. The axioms we choose can be defended with evidence and inductive arguments and by demonstrating the coherences of the "knowledge" that the axiom makes possible, but we can not prove axioms from logically prior knowledge.
This is not to say we can not give any reasons for our axioms, only that we can not prove our axioms. Plantinga's view is that the belief in Christianity is "warranted," that is, it is perfectly reasonable to be a Christian. But that does not mean we can give an absolute proof that Christianity is true and all other worldviews are false. And in that philosophic meaning of "knowledge", we can not "know" Christianity is true, not matter how strong the arguments are for Christianity, no matter how much we can give evidences for Christianity, we can not give a logical proof that show Christianity is necessarily true.
FYI: "Necessarily" is a specific logical term. Something that is proven by a valid and sound logical argument is necessarily true - it can not be possible false if the premises are true. A proof by deductive argument shows a conclusion that is true, a fact that is a fact because it can not be otherwise given what we know is true. If all dogs like meat, and Fido is a dog - it is necessarily true (can not possible be false) that Fido likes meat. The only way to get around the conclusion is to equivocate with the terms in the argument, which invalidates the inference (terms must maintain their meaning throughout the argument for the inference to be valid).
With worldviews - axioms are the first points from which we know things. All worldviews have axioms from which they can justify that something they believe is "necessarily" true and therefore knowledge, or justified true belief. Since nothing can be known logically prior to the axiom, then we can not know (justify the truth) of the axiom. And so we can not ultimately know that Christianity is the true worldview opposed to all other worldviews because we can not prove the Axiom from prior knowledge - if a proposition is logically prior to the axioms of a worldview, then axioms of the worldview are not its true axioms. And so we can not say that other worldviews are irrational or false simply because we believe (however certainly) that Christianity is true. We can only show how more reasonable Christianity is compared to other worldviews.
Someone may object that my definition of justification is too strong - if that is the case, then it applies to all other worldviews - and does not help the defense of the Christian worldview. By maintaining a strict definition of knowledge by logical necessity, I am keeping the bar high - high enough to show the incoherence of may other worldviews. For instance, empiricism can not produce knowledge based on a necessary rule of inference. Evidential arguments may "warrant" Christian belief, but they also warrant non-Christian beliefs. Keeping the bar high simply cuts out worldviews that can not meet the standards of a reasonable worldview.
Well I've covered more than was "warranted" by your questions in your first paragraph. I'll need to check to see if I covered your other questions. It's a pleasure discussing this with you.
OK. Jumping back in after lurking for a bit.
Are you:
1. Expressing skepticism that, although you believe the Gospel, you might not have all the facts of God in your worldview completely right? That is, you trust savingly in the God who is True but you could admit to a more perfect knowledge of that Truth.
2. Expressing skepticism that anybody can know for sure that the Gospel is true?
Honestly, any other issues of question begging become immaterial if you're arguing for number 2. I can at least appreciate your doubt as to perfect knowledge for the case of 1 above. If it's number 2, then what kind of "worldview" is it that believes in the Triune God but then admits that we can't be sure that the Triune God exists?
I've been reflecting, and brooding, about this for a few days. The problem I have with these arguments of circularity is that it assumes too much out of the command to "...always be ready to give a defense of the hope that lies within you...." I certainly see a utility in equipping ourselves to plumb the depths of philosophical thinking but there is a danger that the simplicity of trusting God's truth be lost to fear of "begging the question" when we tell a sinner to repent and believe. On the one hand, I'm not sure from what you're arguing if the gospeller is "allowed" to preach the Truth of the Gospel because it "begs the question" of God's existence. On the other hand, even if he is allowed, it seems the only people "equipped" to defend their faith would have to have a Master's degree in philosophy to prevent the horror of "...begging the question...."
Fundamentally, worldiew or not, God IS. I was dead in sins and tresspasses BUT GOD, who is rich in mercy, made me alive in Christ Jesus. I cannot merely chalk that reality up to some worldview and say it "...begs the question..." to quote the Words of Almighty God as absolutely true. If I believe He exists and rewards those who diligently seek Him why is it "begging the question" anymore than saying Socrates is a man? I've never seen Socrates? I've never been made alive by Socrates. My only intersection with Socrates is words on a page. I have less faith in the reality of a man called Socrates than in the reality of the Triune God. If God is real, why is it question begging to insist upon His reality? Why should I grant the reality of any physical object to an atheist if I'm not even permitted to affirm the self-existence of the Triune God?
I confess, Civbert, I just don't understand a Christian admitting his worldview could be false. It sounds like unbelief. My worldview does not allow me to believe you are an unbeliever and a believer. Please explain better.
[Edited on 3-15-2006 by SemperFideles]
This disturbs me less from an Apologetic level and more from a pure Truth level. I don't know if you're thinking of a worldview in terms of having more or less perfect knowledge. I'm trying to figure out what Civbert is getting at.
Are you:
1. Expressing skepticism that, although you believe the Gospel, you might not have all the facts of God in your worldview completely right? That is, you trust savingly in the God who is True but you could admit to a more perfect knowledge of that Truth.
2. Expressing skepticism that anybody can know for sure that the Gospel is true?
Honestly, any other issues of question begging become immaterial if you're arguing for number 2. I can at least appreciate your doubt as to perfect knowledge for the case of 1 above. If it's number 2, then what kind of "worldview" is it that believes in the Triune God but then admits that we can't be sure that the Triune God exists?
I've been reflecting, and brooding, about this for a few days. The problem I have with these arguments of circularity is that it assumes too much out of the command to "...always be ready to give a defense of the hope that lies within you...." I certainly see a utility in equipping ourselves to plumb the depths of philosophical thinking but there is a danger that the simplicity of trusting God's truth be lost to fear of "begging the question" when we tell a sinner to repent and believe. On the one hand, I'm not sure from what you're arguing if the gospeller is "allowed" to preach the Truth of the Gospel because it "begs the question" of God's existence. On the other hand, even if he is allowed, it seems the only people "equipped" to defend their faith would have to have a Master's degree in philosophy to prevent the horror of "...begging the question...."
Fundamentally, worldiew or not, God IS. I was dead in sins and tresspasses BUT GOD, who is rich in mercy, made me alive in Christ Jesus. I cannot merely chalk that reality up to some worldview and say it "...begs the question..." to quote the Words of Almighty God as absolutely true. If I believe He exists and rewards those who diligently seek Him why is it "begging the question" anymore than saying Socrates is a man? I've never seen Socrates? I've never been made alive by Socrates. My only intersection with Socrates is words on a page. I have less faith in the reality of a man called Socrates than in the reality of the Triune God. If God is real, why is it question begging to insist upon His reality? Why should I grant the reality of any physical object to an atheist if I'm not even permitted to affirm the self-existence of the Triune God?
I confess, Civbert, I just don't understand a Christian admitting his worldview could be false. It sounds like unbelief. My worldview does not allow me to believe you are an unbeliever and a believer.
Please explain better.[Edited on 3-15-2006 by SemperFideles]
Neither really, both question only make sense for the Christian. I'm trying to address the idea that it is possible to logically prove the necessity of any particular worldview being true and all other worldviews false. Because the TAG argument purports to be a logical proof that necessitates the truth of it's conclusion - to defeat all worldviews - and prove the Christian worldview - then we must step away from assuming any particular worldview and try to prove one is true - namely Christianity. This task is impossible since we can only have knowledge within our worldview framework - truths can not be logically proven prior to the axioms that define our worldview.
From that perspective, no worldview is ultimately provable. Any argument which claims otherwise is dishonest - either it presumes what it proves, or it begs the question. Basically - knowledge is founded on our axioms - the first truths that define all following truths. If we get the axioms wrong, we can not be certain that anything that follows is true. Since we can not prove our axioms, we must assume them. Knowledge starts with faith in our axioms.
Bahnsen said there is no neutral ground. This is correct - our worldviews define what we think is true, and the non-believer does not agree with the axiom that define Christianity. I believe Scripture is the most proper first principle for the Christian. We presume the truth of Scripture, and all that we know is justified by that axiom. Our definition of God comes from Scripture, our understanding of the world, our ethics and moral laws. But we can not defeat other worldviews with our presuppositions. We can only defend ours.
We believe the Gospel because God gives us faith - not logical proofs. If logical proofs were sufficient, then rationalism would be our ultimate worldview and faith would not be neccessary for salvation - just pure reason.
[Edited on 3-15-2006 by Civbert]
Ron
Puritan Board Freshman
Nate,
Yes and no, depending on Civbert´s intention at the time. In all cases he denies that an ultimate standard can be proven and this is because he denies that a valid formal argument with true premises is sufficient for a sound argument. However, I do believe, maybe at weaker moments, he has argued that one can demonstrate that ultimate axioms are true. For instance, he is correct that to deny logic one must employ logic. However, this demonstration is inductive in nature, for all he can do is refute other persons one by one. As soon as he would formulate a sound formal argument, he´d be guilty of what he thinks is fallacious circular reasoning. However, all of Civbert´s un-provable axioms beg the question of whether we can know or prove that a priori laws of logic correspond to an external, mind-independent world, let alone bring forth truth, which is always ethical in nature. HERE´S THE RUB: Everything that Civbert proves is unjustified because his axioms, which all his proofs proceed from, are all unjustified. In this sense, he is no different than the infidel. He´s doomed from the start because his epistemology is not revelational but rather autonomous, rooted in arbitrary laws and axioms that have no grounding. Where he and Clark part ways is that Clark knew that the Christian worldview was true this side of glory. What he denied was that we could prove it, for Clark too had a defective view of proof. Civbert takes Clark where Clark would never have gone.
Yup
Yup, but Civbert´s hero, Gordon Clark, did not think this way. Clark appreciated the internal work of the Spirit´s illumination of revelation to man. Accordingly, Scripture was not arbitrary to Clark, yet it is with Civbert though he would probably deny this. Scripture is part of the Christian worldview, yet Civbert is on record saying that he cannot know that the Christian worldview is true this side of glory. Accordingly, how can he know that the Bible is God´s word without knowing the Christian worldview is true since they imply each other?
His creed is skepticism but he can´t live that way, nor does he. He´s much like the atheist who borrows from the Reformed, Christian worldview to make sense of intelligible experience.
Frankly, he would argue with an unbeliever the same way he does with a believer "“ rather poorly.
Ron
If true then why are you spending so much time worrying about logic?
The statement: We believe the Gospel because God gives us faith is a worldview that presupposes the God who is. If your salvation is based upon the condescending and real love of Almighty God then how can you express a sentiment that "...we cannot know for certain that our own worldview is accurate..."?
In other words, you either believe that God saved you and you KNOW that, or you are not certain of it. Which is it? If your worldview is God, you either believe in Him as necessary or you don't believe in Him at all.
If you did not come about this belief by the rules of Aristotlean logic and don't believe anybody else will be convinced by Aristotlean logic (which I quite agree with) then why would that be your Apologetic standard? Beg the question all you want because you believe in the TRUTH OF THE PREMISES - Jesus IS LORD!
The world be damned if they find it circular!
[Edited on 3-15-2006 by SemperFideles]
- Status
