Are You Epistemologically Self-Conscious?
Epistemology is the study of knowledge – how we know what we know. When a person has a belief, it is reasonable to ask the person “how do you know this?” The way in which a person responds to this kind of question will reveal his or her epistemology. All people have an epistemology because they have some beliefs, and they have reasons for their beliefs. But not all reasons are good reasons. And if the reason isn’t very good, then there is a good chance that the belief is wrong. So epistemology is very important if we want our beliefs to correspond to reality.
Most people have not consciously reflected on their own epistemology. They haven’t stopped to ask themselves, “How do I ultimately know anything? What are the standards by which truth is determined? And are these standards reasonable?” It is obvious that all people do have an epistemology because it would be impossible to know anything without some kind of system of knowledge – and people do know things. But most people are not aware of their own epistemology. They are not epistemologically self-conscious.
Some might say, “Who cares? I’m not a philosopher. So why should I be concerned with epistemology? It is enough that I do know things.” But in fact, our epistemology is crucially important because if it is wrong, then many of our beliefs derived from that faulty system will also likely be wrong. If our epistemology is wrong, then we could be wrong about everything we think we know.
The reason for a belief must itself be believed for a good reason – and so on. Suppose Jenny says, “I understand they are building a new apartment complex down the street.” We might ask, “How do you know this?” Jenny responds, “Bill told me. He said he talked with the construction crew.” Is this a reasonable answer? It depends. The reason for Jenny’s belief is Bill’s statement. But is Bill’s statement reliable? If it is, then Jenny’s belief is reasonable. If not, then Jenny’s belief is irrational. So we must know something about Bill in order to know if Jenny is being rational.
For example, it could be the case that Bill is a notorious liar. If Jenny knows this, then it would be irrational for her to believe his statement without additional reasons. But let’s suppose that Bill has shown himself to be trustworthy. Even in this case, Bill could still be mistaken. Maybe he has a mental disorder that causes him to hallucinate from time to time. Bill may honestly believe that he talked with a construction crew, when in fact it never happened. So Jenny’s belief is contingent upon both Bill’s honesty, and the reliability of Bill’s mind and sensory organs.
Jenny’s belief also depends upon the reliability of her own mind and senses. Perhaps Jenny hallucinates on occasion and only thought that she talked with Bill. Perhaps Bill does not actually exist, being only a projection of Jenny’s delusion. How can Jenny know that her own mind and senses are reliable, such that she can know that she really talked with Bill? Most people just assume that their senses are reliable without thinking about whether or not this belief is reasonable; they are not epistemologically self-conscious. But these questions must be answered if we are to be confident that we have knowledge of anything at all. If we are to be considered rational, then we must not continue to act on unsupported assumptions.
Christian epistemology makes knowledge possible.
The Christian worldview alone makes it possible for us to answer these questions and have genuine knowledge. This is because knowledge stems from the nature of God (Proverbs 1:7, Colossians 2:3). God has revealed some of His knowledge to us. Some of this knowledge is hardwired directly into us, and other knowledge is revealed by God through tools that He has given us – like logic and reliable sensory organs. The Christian worldview gives us rational justification for all the things that we rely upon in order to have knowledge.
For example, consider the rationality of the mind. If we had no reason to believe that our mind is rational, then we would have no reason to trust any of our own thoughts. In that case, we couldn’t know anything! In the Christian worldview, we can have some degree of confidence in our mind’s ability to be rational since human beings are made in the image of God. God’s mind is perfect by His nature. And God has given us the ability to pattern our thoughts after His. In fact, for our benefit, God has commanded us to pattern our thoughts after His, so that our thoughts will be truthful (Isaiah 55:7-8, John 14:6)
As another example, we can trust that our senses are basically reliable because God has created them (Proverbs 20:12). What our eyes see and what our ears hear do correspond to reality. Of course, on occasion our senses fail us because we are finite and also because of the curse. An optical illusion is an example of this, and so is a mirage. But God has given us several different senses and the rationality to compare data from different senses so that we can discern these rare instances. So we can be confident that our senses are basically reliable.
As a third example, consider the laws of logic. We use these laws instinctively to rightly judge certain kinds of truth claims. We know that the statement, “My car is in the garage and it is not in the garage (at the same time and in the same way)” is false because it violates a law of logic. But how do we know that laws of logic are reliable? Even if they work sometimes, can we have any confidence that they work all the time, or in future situations that we have never experienced? In the Christian worldview laws of logic are a reflection of the way God thinks. Hence they will necessarily be right because God’s mind defines truth. Laws of logic will be true everywhere in the universe and at all times because God is omnipresent and does not change. We can know laws of logic because we are made in God’s image, and can think in a way that is consistent with His nature.
As a fourth example, we can have knowledge of morality – “right” and “wrong.” God has revealed to us how we should behave according to His will. And God will hold us accountable for our actions. Hence, all people have an objective reason to behave according to the standards laid down in God’s Word. We are morally obligated to our Creator.
The failure of secular epistemologies
Non-Christian worldviews would make knowledge impossible. By this, I certainly do not mean that non-Christians can’t know anything. Clearly they can. But this is despite their worldview and not because of it. My point is that if reality were the way non-Christians claim it is, then knowledge would be impossible. The reason is that these unbiblical worldviews cannot justify those things necessary for knowledge. So while a non-believer might offer a reason for a belief, he or she cannot ultimately justify the reason itself from a non-Christian foundation.
For example, “I know Saturn has rings because I have observed them with my eyes through a telescope.” But this assumes that our eyes are reliable – a Christian concept. A person might say, “I know two contradictory claims cannot both be true because this violates a law of logic.” Quite right, but apart from Christianity there is no reason to believe that laws of logic are universally and invariantly reliable.
As a specific example, consider the most common secular worldview – that the universe is the result of a big bang, followed by billions of years of cosmic and then biological evolution. In this worldview, people are merely the inevitable unplanned result of chemistry acting over time. There is no grand scheme of things, no ultimate mind upholding the universe, and no ultimate objective meaning.
Can a person holding such a view ever have good reasons for his beliefs? Evolutionists do rely upon laws of logic, upon their mind and senses, and upon morality. And these are good reasons – in the Christian worldview. But in the secular worldview, can these reasons be justified? If not, then a secularist would be irrational to believe them.
Why in the secular worldview should we suppose that our mind has the capacity to be rational? Rationality involves choice; we consciously consider the various options and then choose the best. But in the secular worldview, the brain is simply chemistry – and chemistry has no choice. Chemicals always react according to prescribed laws of nature. In the secular worldview, there is no more reason to trust a human brain than there is to trust in reading tea leaves. Both are just the inevitable result of chemical reactions.
Should we trust that our senses are basically reliable? Not in the secular worldview. According to evolution, our sensory organs are merely the result of accidental mutations – those that did not decrease our survival value and were therefore not eliminated. Some people might suppose that our sensory organs are reliable because they have survival value. But this does not follow logically. Chlorophyll has survival value in plants; but this does not imply that chlorophyll reliably informs the plant about the outside world.
Should we trust in laws of logic? In a chance universe, there is no reason to expect there to be laws at all, nor laws of logic in particular. Even if we grant their existence, the secular worldview cannot account for their properties. Given that the universe is in a continual state of change, why should laws of logic be exempt? We all assume that they will be the same tomorrow, but this belief is unwarranted in the secular worldview. Why would they be the same everywhere? How can the human mind know about them? Why does truth always conform to laws of logic? The secular worldview just doesn’t have a good reason for such things. The existence and properties of laws of logic are unjustified in the secular worldview. And hence, any belief based on them is also unjustified in the secular worldview.
What about knowledge of ethics? Morality is about what should be, not what is. In a chance universe, who decides what should be? One person thinks that a particular behavior is commendable. But another person disagrees. Who is right? Morality can only be subjective in a secular worldview; it is relative to the individual. And of course, this isn’t truly morality at all – merely personal preferences. In a secular universe there can be no such thing as an objective “right” and “wrong.”
Rationality
What is the difference between a rational person and an irrational one? A rational person has a good reason for his or her beliefs. An irrational person does not. But what we have seen above is that only the Christian worldview can allow us to have good reasons for our most basic beliefs – our presuppositions. Apart from the Christian worldview, any reason that we offer for any belief cannot be ultimately justified. It would appear that there are only two options for a person to hold. One can either be a consistent Christian, or one can be irrational.
[…] Lisle defends the exclusive adequacy of Christian epistemology as the basis for genuine knowledge (presuppositionalists will like this […]
Hey Mr. Lisle, is a belief that someone is not completely sure about an arbitrary belief?
If it is, would it then be sinful to have that belief?
Hi Zach. A belief that is not completely certain is not necessarily arbitrary. To be arbitrary means to not have a good reason at all. If you have a good reason to believe something, even if that reason isn’t 100% conclusive, then it is perfectly rationally to believe that something. For example, when the weather forecaster tells me there is a 90% chance of rain tomorrow, I tend to believe that it will rain tomorrow and I have a good reason for believing this even if it isn’t absolutely conclusive. So, no it is not sinful to believe things if you have a good reason for them, even if that reason isn’t completely conclusive. Of course, for non-conclusive beliefs, we need to be ready to change our mind if more conclusive evidence to the contrary is presented.
Thank you
Dr. Lisle,
You said that laws of logic “don’t deal with physical things.” I think I get what you mean, but can you explain in your own words what you meant by that? Because someone might say, “doesn’t the law of identity say a rock is a rock and not not a rock. Isn’t a rock a physical thing?” I think what you were saying is that laws of logic deal with the truth of physical things, not the physical things themselves.
Yes, the law of identity states that A is A. It doesn’t deal with rocks so much as with concepts. The concept of a rock is not the same as a rock. The laws of logic deal with relationships between concepts – whether the concepts are of physical things or not.
What about the frontal lobe of the brain, it helps make rational decisions right? So wouldn’t that mean that logic comes from there and therefore logic is “material”?
Thoughts are correlated with physical events, namely synaptic activity in the brain. But that doesn’t mean that thoughts are merely synaptic activity in the brain, or that thinking ultimately comes from the brain, even though the brain is involved in thinking while we are alive. From a Christian perspective it is easy to show this. For one thing, we will continue to have thoughts even after death – after our brain ceases any activity at all (Luke 16:22-25). Logic cannot be material because it is not extended in space; you cannot see, hear, taste, touch, or smell logic. It’s not physical.
In the Christian worldview, we can have things like logic because we allow for non-material things to exist. God Himself is non-material. Logic is the way that God thinks. And since we are made in God’s image, our mind has awareness of logic and a limited ability to use logic to reason.
Investigation into brains shows that the capacities of the mind (memory, emotions, reasoning, and so on) is dependant upon the physical brain (even if not entirely physical).
Brains get damaged and minds get damaged as a result.
[Dr. Lisle: I agree that for living creatures, there is a correlation between brain activity and thinking. And damage to the brain can adversely affect thinking. But that doesn’t imply that all thinking is merely a product of brain chemistry or that wrong thinking results from a damaged brain. After all, we’ve seen lots of errors in your reasoning, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that you are brain damaged. 🙂 ]
So, we have good reason to think that our minds do not actually function after brain death (at least, not in any meaningful way).
[Dr. Lisle: That doesn’t follow rationally. While we are alive, the brain is correlated with the mind and with thinking. But that doesn’t mean that the brain is the mind. From the premise that (1) There are examples of thinking that are correlated with events in the brain, you cannot rationally conclude (2) All cases of thinking must be correlated with a brain. It’s a hasty generalization fallacy.]
It would be a leap to suppose that, even though minor and major damage to a brain leads to damage to a mind, complete loss of a brain has little to no impact on a mind.
[Dr. Lisle: Who said it had “no impact on a mind?” In any case, you are committing the fallacy of commutation of conditionals. If p {brain} then q {thinking} does not imply if q {thinking} then p {brain}. God tells us in His Word that people have conscious existence after death (Luke 16:22-24). Do you have any actual evidence to the contrary?]
I allowed for thinking to not be reducible to brain processes (though I think that it likely is). The fact that there is a correlation between brain damage and mind damage is good reason to think that brain death results in mind death.
[Dr. Lisle: That just doesn’t follow rationally. Perhaps an analogy would be helpful. There is a correlation between me and my car. Our respective locations are nearly identical, seldom deviating by more than 100 feet. Moreover, when my car is damaged, it severely limits my ability to go where I want to go. Would it be rational to conclude therefore that when my car ceases to function, it must be the case that I will die? Of course not. I’ll just get another car.]
Except that what you say I’m claiming isn’t what I’m claiming.
Brain damage is strongly correlated with mind damage.
Therefore we have good reason to believe that brain death results in mind death.
[Dr. Lisle: Again, that doesn’t follow rationally. It would follow rationally if you added an additional premise: that the mind is the brain. That seems to be your suppressed premise. But that premise isn’t remotely established. Identity does not follow from mere correlation. From a mere correlation between A and B you cannot logically conclude that the death of A must result in the death of B. And we have evidence to the contrary.]
Actually, the author of GLuke tells us that.
[Dr. Lisle: God is the ultimate author of the Gospel of Luke, as He is the ultimate author of all the Scriptures (2 Timothy 3:16, 2 Peter 1:20-21).]
The author of GLuke didn’t have access to modern scientific knowledge, so I don’t see a good reason to accept these claims in preference to modern scientific knowledge.
[Dr. Lisle: So many problems here… First, the ultimate author of all the Scriptures is God, and God has access to all scientific knowledge, including everything that will be discovered in the next 1000 years (at which time our modern scientific knowledge will seem primitive and antiquated). Moreover, not all knowledge can be acquired by scientific means; yet God has all this other knowledge too. And the Bible has demonstrated itself to be true in any number of ways, not the least of which is that it makes knowledge possible. So we have a very good reason to accept its claims, and literally no good reason to reject them.]
[Second, there is nothing whatsoever in modern scientific knowledge that is contrary to this claim as you seem to think. After all, scientific procedures are limited to what can be observed and repeated in the present, and are therefore not capable of addressing what happens to the mind after death. Such issues can be analyzed rationally, but they cannot be discovered by experiments in a laboratory, or observations through a telescope.]
You’re stuck with accepting the claims of the author of GLuke, with your a priori commitment to the truth of the bible.
[Dr. Lisle: No, we have a choice. We can accept the claims of Scripture, as rationality demands, and end up with a worldview that can make sense of science, morality, logic, human dignity and freedom. Or we can arbitrarily reject those claims, and be reduced to a worldview in which knowledge isn’t possible. You have an a priori commitment to the rejection of Scripture, but no rational reason to reject Scripture.]
Just all of the evidence which shows that specific damage to brains causes specific damage to minds, and that catastrophic damage to brains results in catastrophic damage to minds.
[Dr. Lisle: And how is any of that evidence even remotely relevant to what happens to the mind after death? You have assumed arbitrarily that things continue to be in the same relationship before death as they are after death. E.g., “People continue to breath after death, since we know they breath before death.” It doesn’t follow. It’s a hasty generalization fallacy to assume that since there is a correlation between mind and brain before death that such a correlation must continue after death.]
So, even if minds are not reducible to the processes of brains, since we have good reason to think that personalities, emotions, reasoning, memories, etc are all dependant upon brains (damage to brains changes or erases these mental attributes), whatever might be said to exist of the mind after brain death is not going to be a thinking, feeling, remembering person.
[Dr. Lisle: That’s a hasty generalization fallacy. The Bible indicates that the relationship between mind and brain changes at death. Now you can arbitrarily assume that it doesn’t, but that has no rational merit.]
While it might not be logically valid to reason from thinking to brains, the only decent evidence we have for thinking comes as a result of brain processes.
That just isn’t so. We do have evidence that thinking can occur apart from a physical brain. God thinks, and yet is spirit rather than flesh. I understand that you arbitrarily reject any evidence from the Bible, but it remains evidence. Additionally, there are laws of nature. Laws stem from a mind and yet the laws of nature cannot stem from a physical mind because a physical mind requires laws of nature to work.
Uh, Lisle?
Weren’t you the one who tried to accuse me once of the Bifurcation fallacy when I pointed out that in a universe with a deity that can manipulate natural laws at whim can’t account for the stability or uniformity of those laws?
[Dr. Lisle: The bifurcation fallacy is committed when people assume that there are only two options: either (1) laws of nature are absolutely immutable or (2) a deity is constantly and whimsically changing them. That’s a bifurcation fallacy because an obvious third position (the biblical one) is that (3) God normally upholds the universe in a rigid and consistent way that we call “laws of nature” and could on very rare occasions do something different – never on a whim – but to accomplish His purpose. On your view, why should there even be laws of nature at all, and why do they not arbitrarily/whimsically change?]
Only in this case, the accusation stands.
You do realize that there are more religions that just xianity, right?
[Dr. Lisle: Sure. Atheism, humanism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, etc. You do realize that none of them can account for the preconditions of intelligibility, right?]
Now as to your statement here:
In the Christian worldview, we can have things like logic because we allow for non-material things to exist. God Himself is non-material. Logic is the way that God thinks.
You have misunderstood conceptual with spiritual it seems. Just become someone can imagine an idea which does not have physical form, it isn’t evidence of some intangible spirit-being…
[Dr. Lisle: Straw-man fallacy. I never claimed that conceptual things are the same as spiritual things. But both are immaterial and therefore things that cannot be accounted for in a materialistic worldview.]
…that can enter the physical world and alter the laws of nature on a whim.
[Dr. Lisle: I’ve never claimed the existence of a spiritual being that can “enter the physical world and alter laws of nature on a whim.” So this is another straw-man fallacy. God constantly upholds the physical universe by His power in an extremely logical and uniform way. That’s why we have laws of nature. God has the power to uphold the universe in a different way, but it would never be “on a whim” because God is unchanging (Malachi 3:6). How can the unbeliever possibly account for uniformity in nature?]
Those are two entirely different things. I can’t believe I’m having to explain this.
[Dr. Lisle: Respectfully, you need to work on your reading comprehension skills.]
So the main problem I am having is justifying logic in order to come to the Christian worldview. But since I can only justify logic in the Christian worldview, I would have to arbitrarily rely on the worldview in order to justify it. So then how do I know that the Worldview is true just because it justifies logic being the correct standard of reasoning?
That means that I would have to arbitrarily assume that logic is the correct standard of reasoning so I could use the Christian worldview.
And just because a worldview justifies logic, it doesn’t mean that it is the correct one. Right?
Can you fix this circle?
It is always the nature of a presupposition, that it must be assumed before its own justification. The justification must come later. That’s unavoidable. But if a presupposition can never be justified, then it ought to be abandoned. God knew you would need to use logic before you would come to discover that He is the foundation of logic by reading His Word. So God “programmed” you to rely on logic and to be able to use logic in a basic way at least to draw reasonable conclusions. But eventually we must ask whether that presupposition is justified.
In the non-Christian worldview, logic can never be justified. Yet, since God has programmed us to use logic to reason, we must rely on it anyway since we have no alternative. So the unbeliever is stuck. He can’t stop using logic to reason; yet he cannot justify it on his own worldview. His belief in logic is therefore arbitrary (in his professed worldview) and is therefore (ironically) irrational.
The Christian however sees that laws of logic are exactly what we would expect given the biblical God. And so we have a good reason to believe in them. Logic is justified (after it was assumed) in the Christian worldview.
So both the Christian and non-Christian reason in a somewhat circular way. Both start by arbitrarily presupposing logic, and then eventually circle back to draw conclusions about logic. But the non-Christian’s circle self-destructs because his conclusions about logic are that logic is unjustified in his worldview, thereby calling into question everything he has concluded using logic – which is everything. On the other hand, the Christian’s circle is self-consistent. The Christian’s reasoning about logic is that logic is well-justified, and so he was right to use it to draw other conclusions. All worldviews must circle back and examine their starting presuppositions. But only the Christian worldview does this in a way that is self-consistent and makes knowledge possible.
And so, it seems to me that we all have a very good reason to embrace the Christian worldview: you either reason within the Christian circle or you would not be able to reason about anything!
I don’t think i can accept answers that answer with the Bible, since the questions are directed in question of that worldview being true, then answering with the presupposition that it is true would then be an arbitrary answer on my part. This is making me crazy since i cannot answer my own questions…
The Bible is the most foundational starting point. And so you won’t be able to prove it by a greater, more foundational standard because there is no greater, more foundational standard. Nonetheless, God does not expect you to embrace His Word arbitrarily. He has provided the proof of His Word within His Word. That’s the only place such a proof could be found since there is nothing more foundational than God’s Word. The proof that the Bible is true is that if it were not true we couldn’t prove that anything is true. Apart from the biblical worldview, there could never be any justification for logic or the principles of science by which we learn about the universe. All beliefs would be unjustified, and thus we couldn’t know anything. We’ve seen how this is true by the many examples on this very website.
And the Bible itself makes this claim. It not only tells us that it is the Word of God, but it tells us that if we reject its claim then we would be reduced to foolishness (absurdity) – Proverbs 1:7, Colossians 2:3, Romans 1:18-23. It demonstrates this claim by indeed making knowledge possible.
Belief in the Bible is therefore not arbitrary because I have a very good reason to believe it: it makes reasoning possible. And since the biblical worldview is the only one that makes reasoning possible, it is the only non-arbitrary worldview.
The bible hardly qualifies as “foundational”. Even Plantinga’s Reformed Epistemology doesn’t go that far.
If you want to argue for something else, go for it. But in my epistemology, the Bible is foundational revelation from God, and its truth makes all other knowledge possible. Apart from Scripture we could never justify induction (by which we get science) or laws of logic or morality.
And how do you justify the bible, being complicated and not obviously true, as foundational to your epistemology?
Or do you just take it as an unargued for premise?
My justification for the Bible is that apart from its truth we would not be able to justify anything at all. The biblical worldview is the necessary prerequisite for all reasoning. It is therefore obviously true, since all people believe in reasoning. But people don’t want to accept the biblical God and so they suppress what they know to be true (Romans 1:18-24).
“The proof that the Koran is true is that if it were not we couldn’t prove that anything is true.”
How do those 2 statements differ in any fundamental way?
(1) The Koran makes no such claim. The Bible does (Proverbs 1:7, Colossians 2:3,8, Romans 1:18-23)
(2) The Koran can’t deliver on that claim, even if it made it. It cannot, for example, provide a basis for finding unity in diversity, whereas the Bible can and does.
1) A quick search showed up Surah 2:170-171:
“And when it is said to them, “Follow what Allah has revealed,” they say, “Rather, we will follow that which we found our fathers doing.” Even though their fathers understood nothing, nor were they guided?
The example of those who disbelieve is like that of one who shouts at what hears nothing but calls and cries cattle or sheep – deaf, dumb and blind, so they do not understand.”
Seems to be claiming that those who disbelieve don’t understand – that Allah’s revelation is the beginning of knowledge.
I would be surprised if that was the only instance.
[Dr. Lisle: Do you affirm Islam? If not, then this is nothing but a red herring, because a fictional/hypothetical god cannot be the basis for justifying anything at all.]
Plus, there’s the fact that Islam takes the original messages of the OT prophets, and Jesus as inspired (though the texts are corrupt), so since the verses you quote don’t contradict the message of the Koran (which is uncorrupted) a Muslim could claim them as support for their position.
[Dr. Lisle: If Muslims want to offer some evidence for their claims, then we can dialog. But since they usually don’t, and since there is evidence against those claims, there is no need to take them seriously. If you affirm Islam, we can discuss further. Otherwise, this is irrelevant to the fact that your worldview cannot justify knowledge.]
It’s not irrelevant, as simply showing that a worldview that is not your own has the same resources to make the same claims as you do for your worldview is enough to undermine your claim that your worldview MUST be correct.
[Dr. Lisle: No. Only true reasons can justify anything. Appealing to something that you believe to be false as a reason for your belief is irrational.]
I don’t need to accept a couterexample, I just need to produce one.
[Dr. Lisle: You would need to produce a true counterexample; and thus one that your affirm. Suppose Tim said, “elephants never have wings.” Joe responds, “Not so, there are elephants that live on the north pole that have wings and can even fly.” Tim says, “That’s not true. You don’t really accept that do you?” Joe responds, “It’s not true of course. But I don’t need to accept a couterexample, I just need to produce one.” Did Joe really refute Tim’s position?]
As for 2), I’d be very surprised if there weren’t some “solution” to it to be found within Islam, though I doubt you’d accept it 🙂
I doubt that you would accept it. Do you affirm Islam?
I have an idea. I know it’s pretty wild, but here it is: how about, instead of trying to figure out how Islam can answer the transcendental argument, you answer how the worldview you do believe in can do this? Because as far as I can tell, you haven’t been able to defend your own worldview, let alone one that you don’t even believe in yourself.
There are numerous responses pointing out problems with the transcendental argument.
[Dr. Lisle: I know this is meant to answer Josef, but I must ask: If there are genuine problems with the transcendental argument, and many responses that point to them, then why haven’t you been able to point out such a problem?]
There’s also numerous non-Christian ways in which we can justify logic, morality and the uniformity of nature.
[Dr. Lisle: Then it should be very easy for you to pick one of them and explain how it justifies these things. Why haven’t you?]
That is what I’ve been trying to get though to Jason, that is why I’ve been directing him to read what the experts in the various fields have to say instead of arguing against straw-man versions.
[Dr. Lisle: Why not actual give the argument rather than appealing to authority? If it’s a good argument, this should be easy.]
Along with that I’ve also presented brief justifications for logic and the uniformity of nature (I’ve not been as forthcoming with a justification for morality, though I’ve pointed out a few alternatives).
[Dr. Lisle: So far, we’ve not seen any justification for laws of logic, or uniformity in nature, or morality from you. That’s what I’ve been asking for, but all I get in response are red-herrings.]
Perhaps you’d like to try to understand where I’m coming from and point out just why my justifications fail, since Jason seems unable to view them from outside of his worldview (and they obviously fail inside of it).
[Dr. Lisle: Rational people are not so arbitrary. Please back up your claims. How does justification for laws of logic, morality, and uniformity “obviously fail” within the Christian worldview? I think we would all enjoy seeing you actually justify these things from your worldview. Why haven’t you?]
Well Havoc, let’s hear it. How do you justify laws of logic within your own worldview?
Hi Josef.
Well, as I’ve said in a number of comments, the laws of logic are axioms in various formal systems. Often these formal systems were developed to model some phenomena in reality (classical logic models the “mid sized” world we humans inhabit, quantum logic models phenomena at the quantum level).
That’s it really. I would like you or Jason to say just why it is that this is inadequate, without smuggling in the presupositions of your own worldview (as Jason appears to be doing with his claims on the nature of the laws of logic).
It’s not actually true that the Bible is the most foundational starting point.
[Dr. Lisle: It claims it is, e.g. Matthew 7:24-27. Any alternative is “sinking sand” and cannot support a rational worldview.]
Simple belief in a God with the attributes you believe are required for knowledge and reason to exist would be more foundational (and could then be used as the foundation on which to demonstrate the bible is true/false).
[Dr. Lisle: The problem is that you would have no way of knowing that God has those attributes if He had not revealed them in His Word.]
Or, you could do what seems to be a better way forward, and take as foundational only those things which logically cannot be denied
[Dr. Lisle: I like this approach, and if you follow it consistently you must conclude Christianity. Any alternative cannot justify laws of logic or scientific induction.]
(and since “God exists” is not obviously necessarily true, we probably shouldn’t start with it) and then build up from there.
[Dr. Lisle: Actually, it is obviously necessarily true that God exists, since any alternative would make it impossible to justify the laws of logic and their properties. This was shown in the famous Bahnsen-Stein debate back in 1985. Moreover, God tells us that He has revealed Himself to us inescapably, such that there is literally “no excuse” for denying Him (Romans 1:18-20). So, the Christian worldview beginning with God as articulated in Scripture is a logically necessary starting point for all reasoning.]
That seems to be more of a reference to the preceeding sayings the author of GMatthew has Jesus pronounce, rather than to the bible as a whole.
[Dr. Lisle: No, it’s not just the red letters. Christ affirmed that we are to live according to every word of the Scriptures (Matthew 4:4). Christ is God, and all the Scriptures are God-breathed.
Even if we accept that Jesus said this, and that it applies to more than the sayings of Jesus, what else does it apply to? The Pauline Epistles (which don’t contain “sayings” of Jesus)? The other NT Epistles? The OT books?
Seems a stretch Jason.
[Dr. Lisle: No, the Bible claims that all of its teachings are God-breathed and profitable for doctrine (2 Timothy 3:16). That necessarily includes all the Old Testament and all the New Testament. Jesus rebuked those who didn’t embrace “all that the prophets have spoken” Luke 24:25.]
Assuming that the bible claims it is foundational, and the bible is true in this claim – you seem to be assuming the truth of your position when arguing against others again.
[Dr. Lisle: To some extent we both are presupposing the truth of the Bible. When you attempt to use your mind to reason about truth, as if your mind were designed by God with the ability to be rational and is not merely an accident of nature, you are tacitly presupposing the Christian worldview. When you presume that laws of logic are universal (such that they apply the same for me as for you) and invariant (such that they will apply truthfully in the future just as they have in the past) you are tacitly presupposing the Christian worldview, because God’s mind does not change with time. When you press a computer key and expect the corresponding letter to appear on the screen as it has in the past, you are presupposing an underlying uniformity in nature as if the universe were upheld by God’s power in a consistent and rational way. So as a matter of practice, both you and I rely upon Christian principles in order to have this dialog. But you simultaneously deny in principle the very Christian principles that you presuppose in practice. Do you think that is rational?]
God could have imbued each person with the knowledge of those attributes.
[Dr. Lisle: He did. But people deny it (Romans 1:18-20). Part of the problem is that our personal intrinsic knowledge of God is not objective or open to the investigation of others. And so it is easy for people to say, “Not me. I have no such knowledge of God.” So, God has also revealed Himself objectively and propositionally in the Bible. This cannot be reasonably denied because we have such easy access to Scripture.]
Those attributes could be arrived at through reason.
[Dr. Lisle: How? If God had chosen not to reveal Himself to humankind, how could we possibly know about Him or His attributes through reason?]
Great – so now you’re admitting that the bible is not foundational, correct?
[Dr. Lisle: No. It’s biblical to think through issues rather than accept everything (Proverbs 14:15). We are supposed to consider alternatives, and reject those that are false. (1 John 4:1).]
Or are you claiming that the statement “The bible is not true” is logically incoherent?
If so, I’d love to see that reasoning.
[Dr. Lisle: It reduces to absurdity. The premise “the Bible is not true” leads inexorably to the position that human rationality cannot be justified, nor laws of logic by which we reason about things, etc. And so whatever line of reasoning leads you to believe that “the Bible is not true” could not itself be justified if the Bible were not true. This will make more sense once we deal with the nature of logic and its justification.]
Possibly (though I haven’t found that to be the case). Either way, the bible isn’t foundational, as it’s truth would be a conclusion, rather than a starting presuppositon.
[Dr. Lisle: How would you go about proving a rationally necessary foundation, especially when conversing with someone who disagrees with you? Since that foundation is rationally necessary, it must be taken as a presupposition (otherwise it would not be rationally necessary). But the conclusion of your argument must also be that this is the necessary foundation for all thinking. You could of course consider the hypothetical alternative, and show that it leads to absurdity.]
I guess if you repeat something often enough, perhaps you come to believe it to be true.
[Dr. Lisle: Interesting… I was just thinking that about you actually. Hopefully, someone will try and challenge the claim by attempting to provide some other worldview that can justify laws of logic or scientific induction. But so far, no one has been able to do so. (Though, many have tried.)]
It’s not obvious, and it hasn’t been shown to be the case.
[Dr. Lisle: It is, and it has been.]
Because the live debate format is exactly how we should decide these things which require careful thought and discussion?
[Dr. Lisle: A good debate (which this one was) involves careful thought and discussion. That’s the point of a debate: to see which side has the best reasons. I take it you are not familiar with this debate. This would be a very good place for you to start, if you’d like to get up to speed on these issues.]
Actually, the author of Romans (Paul) tells us that we have no excuse for denying him.
[Dr. Lisle: Actually, the ultimate author of all the Scripture is God. And so it is God who used Paul to write that there is no excuse for denying Him.]
In such a worldview, how would you ever know whether or not scripture was true?
[Dr. Lisle: By recognizing the impossibility of the contrary. You are supposed to think about the alternatives to Scripture, and see how they would fail to make knowledge possible.]
How would you go about assessing or testing a claim within scripture?
[Dr. Lisle: By recognizing that if the Bible is what it claims to be, the Word of God, then all its affirmations would have to be true. And we know the Bible is what it claims to be by the impossibility of the contrary.]
Is there any way this could result in scripture being mistaken?
[Dr. Lisle: No. It wouldn’t be an ultimate standard if it could be mistaken. And yet it must be the ultimate standard by the impossibility of the contrary. Thus, it cannot be mistaken.]
How could you find that out, given your a priori comittment to it’s absolute truth and authority over everything else you could possibly know?
[Dr. Lisle: God has given us the ability to consider hypothetical alternatives, and follow them through to their logical end. These alternatives lead to the conclusion that knowledge isn’t possible. But knowledge is possible. And so we must conclude that the alternatives are wrong. Now I haven’t given all the details here. But if you have honestly read my book, then you should see at the very least how the secular/evolutionary worldview necessarily leads to the conclusion that knowledge would be impossible, and is therefore self-refuting.]
I tracked down and read through a transcript of the debate. It seems that the debate mirrors quite a lot of what you and I have been going back and forth about.
Stein explained how he accounted for laws of logic, for example, in terms similar to those I have used. Bahsen dismissed these without seeming to really argue why they are, which I think reflects your own arguments here.
So, in an effort to understand better where you’re coming from, perhaps you could explain further just why my brief accounting for the laws of logic is inadequate?
I will explain further as you request. So far, your responses haven’t actually justified any of the things I asked you to justify about laws of logic; and in some cases your responses are self-contradictory. Allow me to refresh your memory about why your answers so far have not justified the laws of logic and their properties (as I have already pointed out before).
Recall, I stated, “But since logic (correct reasoning) stems from the mind of God, it is objective, universal, and unchanging.” You then answered with this claim: “We can also get the same result by adopting a conventionalist approach to formal systems.” But you didn’t demonstrate that claim at all; you didn’t provide any reason why a “conventionalist approach to formal systems” would result in universal, invariant, abstract principles of reasoning that are correct.
What’s worse, I pointed out that your answer can’t possibly work even in principle; it fails for two reasons. Recall I wrote, “First, if logic is a human invention, then there is no reason at all to believe that it is universal, objective, or unchanging. After all, cars are a human invention; they didn’t exist at one point in the past and now they do. Cars are limited (as far as we know) to places where humans go. They are not universal. And different people have invented different cars with different features to reflect different subjective preferences. And those preferences have changed with time. But logic isn’t like that. Principles of logic are universal, objective, and unchanging. So how can that be – apart from Christianity – and how do you know?” You have never answered this.
So you have not demonstrated that laws of logic (the principles governing correct reasoning) are objective, universal, and unchanging, in your worldview, nor how you could possibly know that they are such. Moreover, you then contradicted yourself by saying, “The system of classical logic, for example, is objective, and unchanging. It’s not universal.” So you have simultaneously claimed that (1) you can justify the universality of laws of logic, and (2) laws of logic are not universal. Which is it?
Recall, I also pointed out previously that you were confusing linguistic conventions (“systems”) with the laws themselves. I certainly agree that linguistic systems are conventional, and can change with time, place, or culture as indeed they have. But the underlying laws do not change when humans find new ways to formulate them. The laws of logic – the principles of correct reasoning – are discovered by people, not created or determined by them. If people, by convention, all agreed that two contradictory statements are both true, that wouldn’t make it so. The law of non-contradiction would still apply, regardless of what people believe. It is objective (it doesn’t change from one person to the next), universal (it applies equally well to all propositions everywhere in the universe), invariant (it doesn’t change with time) and abstract (not made of material or extended in space). Do you understand this?
If so, then how can you account for the existence and properties of laws of logic within your worldview, and justify how you know that they have such properties?
Jason, I thought I merely needed to justify the logic and it’s use within my worldview. I didn’t realise I needed to justify your view of logic within my worldview.
[Dr. Lisle: I have asked you to justify LAWS of logic. So far, you have only dodged that question and resorted to pontificating on linguistic systems. That’s the fallacy of irrelevant thesis. Every time you switch topics and don’t answer my question, you give further evidence that my claim is correct: that non-Christian worldviews cannot justify laws of logic.]
I’ve already pointed out that formal systems of logic appeatr to be modelling languages.
[Dr. Lisle: Fallacy of irrelevant thesis. I have NEVER asked you to justify formal systems. I’m not asking about classical, boolean, quantified systems. I have asked if you can justify the existence and properties of logical LAWS, like the law of non-contradiction.]
Classical logic was developed to model the mid-sized realm humans interact in. Quantum logic was developed to model the micro-realm where quantum events are important. These two formal systems are not entirely compatible, having different axioms andrules of symbol manipulation.
[Dr. Lisle: Fallacy of irrelevant thesis. Fallacy of irrelevant thesis. Fallacy of irrelevant thesis. I’m not asking you to justify these linguistic systems. Rather, I want to know if you can justify the laws of logic. Do you plan to ever actually deal with my question?]
I also pointed out that there are well defined formal systems of logic which deny the law of non-contradiction, which seems to contradict your claim that there is a single set of “principles of logic” which underlies all formal systems of logic, and which contains the law of non-contradiction.
[Dr. Lisle: Irrelevant thesis – I’m not asking about systems. Also, did you catch the inconsistency in your statement? You said, “there are well defined formal systems of logic which deny the law of non-contradiction, which seems to contradict your claim…” But why should you be bothered that this contradicts my claim if the law of non-contradiction is not universal? After all, how do you know that I am not in one of those situations or using one of those formal systems where the law of non-contradiction doesn’t apply?]
I asked you to tell me just what these principles are, but you’re yet to do so.
[Dr. Lisle: I keep giving the law of non-contradiction as an example. And you keep failing to justify it and its properties, and simply switch topics and begin pontificating on linguistic systems.]
I’ve also demonstrated that in the same way the laws of logic are unchanging, invariant, and work in orbit around Alpha Centauri the same way they do on earth, the rules of a game like chess can be viewed the same way (changing the rules of chess results in a different game, and changing the rules of a formal system of logic results in a different formal system of logic).
[Dr. Lisle: Actually, you demonstrated the opposite of what you were attempting to prove as I previously showed. The rules of chess HAVE changed over time quite significantly and we still call it “chess” (though what we call it is not relevant; the point is that human stipulated rules can change with time or location). And the rules of chess differ slightly depending on what the players agree to, or their local culture. Therefore, by your reasoning, if laws of logic are like rules of chess then we would expect that they (1) Do change with time or at least that they can and (2) that they can differ from place to place. You therefore cannot justify on your own worldview why laws of logic are universal, or invariant, or how we could know. Some of your answers actually suggest that you don’t think that laws of logic are universal or invariant (though it’s hard to tell since you continue to confuse systems with laws).]
Far from failing to justify logic from a non-Christian, non-Theistic viewpoint, I believe I’ve done just that, and in a way that is superior to your own claim,
[Dr. Lisle: So far, you haven’t even touched the topic of justifying laws of logic, which is what I was asking you to do. You merely point out that there are multiple linguistic systems. Yes, I know this. But that has never been my question. I contend that only Christianity can justify the actual laws of logic themselves (not “systems” such as classical or Boolean) and their properties, such as the universal and invariant nature of the law of non-contradiction.]
since my position has no problem justifying diferent incompatible systems of logic, while it seems to me that this does present a challange for you.
[Dr. Lisle: Dishonest. No one has any difficulty justifying why human-defined linguistic conventions differ from each other. But only the Christian worldview can justify the existence and properties of the actual laws of logic themselves, and account for our knowledge of such laws. I’d say you have helped demonstrate this point spectacularly.]
Jason, if you can tell me what you mean by “Laws of logic”, over and above axioms in a formal system, and demonstrate that these “Laws of Logic” actually exist and are in need of explanation, then I will attempt to provide one.
[Dr. Lisle: Laws of logic are universal, invariant, abstract entities that govern correct reasoning, and distinguish correct reasoning from incorrect reasoning. Of course they exist because we use them every day. We couldn’t reason properly without them. They need an explanation because rational people have a good reason for their beliefs. So you ought to be able to either justify the laws of logic in a consistent way in your worldview, or relinquish using them.]
As it stands, you have asked me to explain “Laws” like the law of non-contradiction. I’ve given an explanation (an axiom in various formal systems). If that’s not satisfactory, then I’m not sure what it is you’re asking for.
[Dr. Lisle: The reason that defining laws of logic as an axiom in various formal systems doesn’t stand up to analysis is because it does not account for the properties of laws of logic, and in fact contradicts them. Namely, formal systems as a human invention are not universal, nor invariant. They are abstract of course. But there is no reason to suppose that a formal system invented by a human being would necessarily govern correct reasoning, or that it should distinguish correct reasoning from incorrect reasoning. So, can you – on your worldview – justify laws of logic in a way that accounts for their actual properties?]
I don’t agree.
[Dr. Lisle: Then you’ve lost the debate. You see, in order to debate with me, laws of logic would have to be universal, invariant, abstract entities that govern correct reasoning. Suppose that laws of logic were not universal. Then you and I would not be able to have rational dialog because we might be using different laws of logic. I might be right according to the laws I am using, while you would also be right by the laws you are using. Rational discourse presupposes that laws of logic apply universally to all people. In fact, if laws of logic were not universal, then you could never know anything about anything because you’d never know if the laws of logic you used to draw your conclusion actually apply in any particular situation.]
[Suppose laws of logic were not invariant. Then rational dialog wouldn’t be possible because whatever is true and in accordance with laws of logic today might not be tomorrow. Suppose laws of logic did not govern correct reasoning or distinguish it from incorrect reasoning. In that case logic would be totally irrelevant to reasoning, to truth, to reasonable dialog. I could freely contradict myself, and when you say “you can’t do that – you just contradicted yourself”, I could simply reply “So what? That has nothing to do with the truth of the matter. Of course I can contradict myself and still be right.” You see, if laws of logic didn’t govern correct reasoning, then they cannot be used to say that someone is reasoning incorrectly. And so, there would be no point at all in debate.]
I guess the rules of chess are also entities in need of some explanation, since they must exist – people play chess every day, and we couldn’t play chess properly without them.
[Dr. Lisle: Yes they do. Rational people have a good reason for their beliefs. Rules of chess are easily justified as a human invention. They didn’t exist before people made them, and they change with time and location as people determine. They have nothing to do with correct reasoning about any external reality because they are merely a human convention. But laws of logic have different properties, and cannot be justified in your worldview, as we have seen.]
I’ve provided an explanation which is consistent with a naturalistic worldview. You expect something more, something which doesn’t accord with what the laws of logic seem to be to me. On top of that you have failed to demonstrate that my explanation is inadequate.
[Dr. Lisle: Hopefully, you now see why your explanation is inadequate. It cannot account for the success of laws of logic in distinguishing true from false, or right reasoning from wrong reasoning. It cannot account for the universality of laws of logic which is necessary for any two people to have a rational dialog. It cannot account for the invariance of laws of logic which is necessary for reasoning about the future or the past. As such, it cannot even account for our present dialog.]
You haven’t shown that the “laws of logic” must necessarily be more than the rules of a formal system of logic. I’ve shown that the rules of chess “universal” in the same sense as the laws of logic seem to be, and are invariant as well (since if we change the rules, we’re playing a different game.)
[Dr. Lisle: Hopefully, you now see why this doesn’t work. First, rules of chess are not universal. People play different versions of chess with or without time-limit rules, various “touch” rules, maximum number of moves rules, etc. The rules of chess are not invariant an in fact have changed with time; I pointed this out previously but perhaps you didn’t read it carefully. Pawns, for example, were not promoted when reaching the other side of the board, and the queen’s movement was originally much more restricted than it is today. Your comment that it would be a different game is irrelevant; the rules are not invariant nor universal, nor do they have anything to do with right reasoning because they have been arbitrarily stipulated.]
[Do you now understand why laws of logic cannot be accounted for in the same way as rules of chess? Rules of chess are conventional – they are stipulated by human beings and as such are not universal, not invariant, and have nothing to do with right reasoning. But laws of logic, such as the law of non-contradiction, are not conventional. They are universal (otherwise this dialog would be pointless since we might be using different, arbitrarily chosen laws of logic), invariant (otherwise this dialog would be pointless since it presupposes that what was proper reasoning yesterday is also proper reasoning today), and govern correct reasoning (otherwise it would be pointless to use logic in a debate). Again, I’ll remind you that I am not talking about linguistic systems such as Aristotelian vs. Boolean, but rather the underlying universal and invariant principles of right reasoning. Can you justify these in your worldview? I say you can’t.]
Bingo!
[Dr. Lisle: I take that to mean you agree with me. If so, then there is no reason whatsoever to think that laws of logic have anything to do with right reasoning. But if that were so, then why are you attempting to use laws of logic to persuade me that I’m not reasoning rightly?]
We can see the development of classical logic as attempts to model “good thinking”, with reference to external reality. External reality serves as a test of sorts, for reasoning – if you mess up your reasoning about reality, then you find out because reality won’t conform to your conclusions…
[Dr. Lisle: Several problems here. First, how would you know if you “mess up your reasoning about reality”? In fact, we use laws of logic to discern what is true about external reality, and therefore we could not know about external reality if we didn’t already know at least some of the laws of logic. As one example, how could you ever prove or even inductively conclude modus ponens by observations of external reality without already knowing modus ponens? Second, laws of logic deal with right reasoning, regardless of “external reality” and so that strongly challenges your claim. You are perhaps confusing laws of logic with laws of nature. Laws of logic are conceptual and deal with the right relationships between propositions which are also conceptual. While laws of logic are certainly helpful to us in dealing with external reality, that’s not what they are really about. They are about the relationships between propositions.]
[Dr. Lisle: And again, you are confusing formulations with laws. The law is the underlying truth. The formulation is the words we use to describe that truth. Formulations are invented, but laws are discovered. The law of non-contradiction, for example, is not something that human beings invented for convenience; rather it is something they discovered and put into words. If it were an invention, then people would be free to invent otherwise. And so, we might expect that laws of logic would be different among different people groups; in some cultures contradictions would be true, for example. But this just isn’t the case. The way we formulate laws may differ from place to place and from time to time, but not the actual laws.]
(see classical logic applied to the quantum realm, for an example of this sort of failure, even using a system of “correct reasoning”)
[Dr. Lisle: You’ve made this mistake several times now, so I will try to clarify for you what is really going on here. In fact, the laws of logic are not different for the quantum realm. If they were different, then it would be impossible to draw any conclusions about quantum phenomena. To illustrate this, suppose we set up an experiment regarding quantum-scale particles such that if we get a particular result (p) it will prove a particular hypothesis (q). We perform the experiment, and get result p. And you’d be tempted to conclude q. Yes? But that presupposes that modus ponens applies to quantum phenomena. However, you’ve claimed that laws of logic are different for quantum phenomena, in which case you cannot just assume that modus ponens applies. Thus you cannot rationally conclude q. And by extension, you can’t rationally conclude anything about quantum-scale phenomena since any experiment you do relies upon modus ponens.]
[Why then the need for “quantum logic?” This is done because words are used in a different way when referring to quantum phenomena, and thus a different linguistic system is applied. For example, when we talk about the position or momentum of a particle in the quantum world this doesn’t mean quite the same thing as it does for large-scale phenomena because quantum particles are not discrete and have a wave-nature. “Quantum logic” is merely a formalism for describing observable quantum states. But the underlying principles of correct reasoning remain unchanged. It is the same principle as the difference between Boolean logic and Aristotelian logic. The underlying principles are identical; the two systems merely take different linguistic choices about what phrases are defined to have existential import.]
[I would strongly urge you to read a textbook on logic, or take a class on the subject. I think it would help you tremendously.]
Done. Repeatedly.
[Dr. Lisle: Not yet, but we’re anxiously waiting for you to do so. Simply denying the properties of laws of logic is not the same as justifying them – and the former would make all rational dialog impossible.]
Jason, when you say “LAW”, what do you mean?
[Dr. Lisle: A law is a universal rule or principle regarding the relationship between elements within the selected topic. That the force of gravity is proportional to the product of the two masses and inversely proportional to the square of their distance is a law of nature because it relates force, mass, and distance – aspects of nature. Laws of logic are universal rules pertaining to the relationships between propositions.]
It seems we have different ideas of what a “Law” (of logic, or even of nature) is, and so what makes a successful justification differs.
[Dr. Lisle: Yes. You seem to be thinking of the words as a law, whereas I would say that words are a formulation of a law. When Isaac Newton first wrote down “F=GmM/r^2” did he create the law of gravity or merely discover the law of gravity? If a teacher holds up a picture of a horse to her class and asks, “what is this?” and the class responds, “a horse” well that’s okay. But more technically it’s a picture of a horse. The horse isn’t actually in the classroom. Likewise, F=ma is not the actual law, but rather a symbolic representation of the law. I’ve been asking you to justify laws of logic, and you have responded by justifying their symbolic representations instead (which is trivial).]
It’s my understanding that to you, a Law (of logic, for example) is some transcendental “thing” which has independent existence (outside of your worldview, you might appeal to something like a platonic realm, though inside your worldview, I understand this existence is as some feature of your God).
[Dr. Lisle: A law exists apart from its formulation. It does not have physical existence of course – a law is an immaterial entity. The law of gravity existed before Newton wrote it down; it existed before people existed. That is, it was true that the force of gravity between to objects is proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the distance between them, even before people existed. That universal rule regarding the relationship between force, mass, and distance existed before people did, and Newton discovered it and formulated it (put it into words or mathematical symbols).]
For me, as I’ve tried to explain, the laws of logic are simply axioms in a formal system.
[Dr. Lisle: In logic, an “axiom” is a proposition that is assumed without proof for the sake of studying the consequences that follow from it. If laws of logic are merely axioms, then they cannot be justified because by definition axioms are assumed without proof. Thus we would literally have no reason to assume that laws of logic are true, that they in fact distinguish correct reasoning from incorrect reasoning. And thus, logic would be useless in debating who is in the right.]
It doesn’t have the same sort of external, independent existence as you claim in your worldview. From within my worldview, I don’t see why the laws of logic, for instance, would need to be the same sort of thing as it is in yours.
[Dr. Lisle: If laws of logic don’t really exist, then how can we use them to reason? How can you use something that doesn’t exist? If laws of logic are merely human stipulations, then why not stipulate different ones?]
I think this is why we seem to be talking past each other, to some extent.
[Dr. Lisle: Yes. true. Does this clear it up?]
How do we know that knowledge requires justification?
By definition. Knowledge is defined to be a true, justified belief. Therefore, a belief that is not justified is not knowledge. It might be true, but you couldn’t say you know that it’s true if you have no reason. If you say “I just know it will be sunny for the church picnic next month”, you wouldn’t really know that would you? Because you can’t predict the future, you don’t really have a good reason for that belief, even if it turns out to be true. To have knowledge, you must have a (1) belief, (2) the belief must be true, and (3) you must have a good reason to believe that it is true.
Traditionally knowledge has been defined in that way, though it’s useful these days more as a general rule of thumb than a hard delimiter for what constitutes knowledge and what doesn’t.
Well, um, i think you restated the reason for my question.
I asked how we know that knowledge requires justification.
But you answered that knowledge requires justification.
Maybe i can help.
Trying to justify how we -know- that -knowledge- requires justification.
Uh….
Trying to justify justification. Uh, is that illogical?
I answered that it is justified by its definition. Definitions need no further support. When you create a new word, you are allowed to stipulate its definition. Supposed I coin the word “parfon.” I’m allowed to define its meaning, and that settles the matter: “A parfon is a chair with only three legs.” Now if you ask how I know/justify that a parfon is a chair with three legs, I will simply say, “because I have so stipulated. It’s my word, and I have defined it to be such.” That’s a good answer and it settles the matter. No further justification is required.
After a while, words have a meaning by common consent. The word “bachelor” is defined to be “an unmarried man” because that is how people agree to use the term. You can look it up in a dictionary, and “bachelor” is defined to be “an unmarried man.” So if someone asks, “how do you know/justify that a bachelor is an unmarried man?” the best response would be “because ‘bachelor’ is defined to be ‘an unmarried man.'” The stipulated definition of the word justifies our understanding of it. This is called an analytic truth – when the sentence can be justified simply by knowing the definitions of the words. The philosophical definition of ‘knowledge’ is ‘true, justified belief.’ So how do I know that knowledge requires justification? Because ‘knowledge’ is defined that way. No further justification is needed because the definition of knowledge requires it to be true, justified belief.
If you find that unsatisfying, maybe it’s because you’re really wanting to ask a different question. For example, “why should we have knowledge (true, justified belief) rather than simply true beliefs?” Or “why is it important to have good reasons for our beliefs?” And then we can look at the Scriptural basis for such things.
It sounds like you just said, “Since people define knowledge as true, justified belief, then therefore it is true justified belief.”
But how do we know that the definition, itself, is true.
If we can just coin definitions to words and claim that the definitions are justified just because we defined them, then that would be irrational on what we are talking about.
Your example of parfon is different from what we are talking about. What we are talking about is a pre-existing “thing”, which we call knowledge, then we try to define what it is, and we call it “true, justified belief”. My question is how we know that it true.
Your example is where you created a word first, then you tried to give it a definition. The word was not already connected to a certain thing.
So therefore, i can say that “knowledge” is unjustified belief, by what your comment implies.
We need to justify that the pre-existing thing actually HAS the same definition, and that we are not just giving it a subjective definition to fit our argument.
Let’s keep getting through this.
Hi Zach. Perhaps it would help if we talk about the different kinds of definitions. First, there is a “stipulated definition.” When someone coins a new word, he is allowed to stipulate what the word means. I know that “____” means such and such because I have defined the term that way. No further justification is needed. But what about a word that is already in use? You are correct that I cannot rationally stipulate a definition to a preexisting word. I can’t define “creation” to be “true” for example. If I made that claim, it would be called a “rhetorical definition,” or a “persuasive definition” – and that would be a fallacy.
But keep in mind that words we now use were, at one time, stipulated. There was a time when the English word “knowledge” didn’t exist. And at some point, someone coined that word. And that person was allowed to stipulate its meaning. People using the word would use that definition. That meaning might change slightly over time if people begin using the word in a different way. So for words that already exist, their meaning/definition is determined by usage. This is a “lexical definition.” How do we know how people use a word? We consult a dictionary. A dictionary is really a type of history book, that records how words have been used by people, especially how the word is used today. A dictionary usually lists a number of definitions in decreasing order of usage. It may not list all usages. So we are justified in knowing the lexical definition of a word by consulting a dictionary.
There are also technical definitions. These are definitions that are used in a particular field of study. For example, “work” has a specific meaning in the field of physics. “Work” is defined (in physics) as a force applied over a distance. A technical definition would be listed in a textbook on the topic in question. It may also be listed in a standard dictionary if the dictionary is extensive. So technical definitions are a subset of lexical definitions. And, like lexical definitions, the first use of a technical definition is always stipulated.
There is also the “precising definition.” This one is particularly important in academic discussion and debate. A precising definition is when we select one particular lexical or technical definition for the purpose of discussion. For example, I might say, “By ‘evolution’ I mean the idea that all organisms are biologically descended from a common ancestor.” That of course is only one definition of the word ‘evolution’ that would be found in a dictionary, but it is the one that I have chosen to be the topic of discussion. The precising definition is necessary in debates to prevent equivocation fallacies – where people shift the meaning of a term in the middle of an argument.
The precising definition combines aspects of the lexical or technical definition (because it is one of the definitions found in a dictionary or textbook) with those of the stipulated definition (because I am allowed to choose which definition applies). The definition of knowledge as “true, justified, belief” is a precising definition because it is found in a dictionary and/or textbook on logic/philosophy, and it is the one that I have selected for the purposes of discussion because it is most relevant to the issue of whether or not critics of the Bible can justify their beliefs. The only requirement for justification of a precising definition is that it is found in a dictionary or textbook. And “knowledge” is indeed defined that way in philosophy/logic texts.
What about unknown worldviews which we do not know about?
There are several different ways to answer that question. But the easiest, perhaps, is to realize that there are only so many possible categories of worldview. For example, either God exists, or it is not the case that God exists – there is no third possible alternative. And so all possible worldviews can be divided into theistic, or atheistic. They can be further divided by other criteria. But you will find that there really are only a handful of basic types of worldview. And the non-Christian ones inherently end up with the same defects: they cannot make knowledge possible. Dr. Greg Bahnsen has done some wonderful audio lectures on this topic where he examines all the basic categories of worldviews, and shows how each is defective except for Christianity. http://store.americanvision.org/products/defending-the-christian-worldview-against-all-opposition
Hello, Dr. Lysle: I have just finished reading your book (the Ultimate Proof) and also have read this post. But I am looking for perspicuity in both. My question is: Are there only 2 worldviews or are there more? And sorry I’m on a fixed income and I can’t afford the 50 bucks for the 22 disc cd set. Besides I want to know what you believe.
In the same way that you can cut a cake into as many pieces as you want, you can do the same with worldviews. In terms of rationality, there are only two options: (1) rational, and (2) not rational. The Christian worldview alone is rational, the non-Christian worldview is irrational. So, in that sense, there are just two worldviews. But the non-Christian worldview can be further divided into various families if you wish to do so. But they will all have certain problems within them, and will ultimately fail the “AIP” test mentioned in my book. And they are all non-Christian. Bahnsen found it convenient to divide the non-Christian systems of thought into three basic families, and one of those can be further divided into three sub-families. It’s all about how you want to cut the cake.
Dr. Lisle,
I just want to thank you for the work you do and for the time you take to engage with us on here and answer questions. I was wondering if I could get your take on something. I was explaining to someone that you can’t just read the Bible however you want “because there are rules to language.” He said, “yea but men came up with the rules.” I told him, “okay, then I’m going to make up my own rules right now, and interpret what you are saying as agreeing with me.” I was able to answer him in a way that was sufficient in showing him the problem with his view. But it still left me wondering, is there a sense in which humans do determine the rules of language? I know language is from God, how much of it is from God and how much of it is from humans?
Hi Chris. Your response was great. I can’t give a precise answer to your question. We know that God is linguistic Being, and has made us in His image with the ability to use language. Adam was made able to speak, so presumably all the original rules of the original language are from God. But even on that first day, God allowed Adam to name the animals. So, man coined some new terms with God’s blessing. God has therefore allowed us to play a part in the development of language from the very beginning.
God confused the languages at Babel, perhaps resulting in the several dozen known base language groups. Over time, the meanings of some words would change as people began to use them in novel ways due to new cultural situations and settings. “Do you prefer an Apple product or a Blackberry?” means something different today than it did fifty years ago. Some rules of grammar might change with time as well as people deem them convenient. And so we now have thousands of languages, but still only a few dozen base language groups. Compare a KJV Bible with a more modern translation to see how language has shifted somewhat in the last several centuries.
Thanks! That was very helpful. Would you say there is a close tie-in between the rules of language and laws of logic?
Yes. Laws of logic are always articulated in language. They’re not the same of course, but there is a connection.
Do you think that God will protect me from death if i am constantly trying to regain my Faith in Him and when i want to serve Him?
But a major part of me wanting to serve Him is because i don’t want to go to hell, not all of the reason but a major part of it though.
So…..
Hi Zach. The Bible teaches that God has revealed Himself inescapably to all people such that there is no defense for disbelief in Him; but in our sin we suppress that truth (Romans 1:18-20). (As sinners, we lie to ourselves and try to convince ourselves that the evidence for God is not obvious). And God does sometimes allow people to die in their sins (John 8:24). So I would not presume upon Him to protect me if I were an unbeliever. I would say that if you want to serve God, then serve God (Joshua 24:15). It’s okay to ask God for faith (Luke 17:5) – that’s a prayer that God loves to answer. Don’t hesitate to earnestly ask God to help overcome unbelief (Mark 9:24). God promises that if you diligently seek Him, you will find Him (Deuteronomy 4:29, Hebrews 11:6, Acts 17:27). Some people have the attitude that “after I figure out everything, after I understand all aspects of God and after I have demonstrated the Bible to be true to my own satisfaction, then I will trust in Him.” But you will never understand every aspect of God because He is infinite and your are finite. And there will always be difficult sections of His Word that are hard to understand (2 Peter 3:16). This is why we can only come to God by faith; it’s a very rational faith (it’s the ONLY rational faith system), but it must precede understanding because faith in God is what makes understanding possible (Proverbs 1:7). We believe so that we may understand.
It’s okay to be motivated – in part – by an aversion to hell. Jesus warned us about hell because He loves us and doesn’t want us to end up there. Unbelievers should indeed fear the One who can cast them into hell, and should be motivated to repent (Luke 12:5). After salvation, Christians are motivated to serve God out of love and gratitude for saving us.
Understand what i am talking about?
I am unsure and urgently trying to justify and regain my faith in God, i am also following the Bible’s teaching on sin right now.
So there is no guarantee that God will protect from death until i regain my faith?
Yes, I think I understand you. And yes, God doesn’t anywhere promise to protect people from death until the are saved, but He may choose to do so in some cases. I think you already have at least some faith in God, otherwise you wouldn’t be concerned about these issues. If I were you, I would pray to God and ask Him to forgive my sins, to save me, to increase my faith in Him, and invite Him to be Lord of my life. Spend more time reading the Bible – that will increase your faith (Romans 10:17). If you’re not already, be sure to become part of a good Bible-teaching church. Spend time around Christians, and be honest with them about your doubts.
It’s actually a biblical command to believe the Gospel (Mark 1:15). So do it – insomuch as it depends on you – and trust God to increase your faith. It might be intellectually fulfilling for you to read some good books on the defense of the faith. My book “the Ultimate Proof of Creation” might help you. Anything by Greg Bahnsen is great, such as “Always Ready.” And perhaps Josh McDowell’s books like “A Ready Defense.” (Although I don’t fully agree with McDowell’s approach, the information regarding the veracity of the Bible is really good, and may help you.) Let me know if there is anything else I can do for you Zach.
The thing you can do for me is to answer my questions. Because I really need them answered to have a solidified faith in God.
Happy to help if I can.
Zach,
I just wanted to say that fearing God to avoid Hell is actually not a bad place to start in your coming to faith. In fact, Jesus even says to exercise that fear: “But I will warn you whom to fear: fear him who, after he has killed, has authority to cast into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him!” (Luke 12:5 ESV)
Of course, this shouldn’t be the sole reason to love God and willingly obey Him, but it’s good that you do recognize the reality of Hell.
I also second Dr Lisle in that there is no guarantee that God protects anyone from death.
So basically, logic. Don’t know if i can trust it because, how do we know that we can use logic as a way to let the Bible prove itself.
Logic being the correct standard?
Sorry if i am restating an already answered question.
There are several ways I could answer that. Logic is reliable because it stems from the nature of God, and God is ultimately trustworthy. Also, I could point out that you really have no alternative. There is no “other” right way of reasoning than what God has given us. Since logic is a reflection of God’s thinking, and since God is the standard for truth, logic is absolutely necessary for us to use if we are going to have truthful thinking. The Bible endorses the use of right reasoning (Isaiah 1:18). We reason rightly when we reason in a way that is consistent with God’s nature (Isaiah 55:7-8).
Also, the Bible presupposes the use of logic throughout. That is, God expects you to use logic when you read the Bible to draw truthful conclusions. One example of this is found in 1 John 5:13. This passage indicates that it is possible for Christians to know that we have eternal life; but this can only be done by using logic. The Bible nowhere says, “Dr. Lisle is saved.” Instead it says that those who confess with their mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in their heart that God raised Christ from the dead will be saved (Romans 10:9). And I know that I have confessed with my mouth that Jesus is Lord and I believe in my heart that God raised Him from the dead. I can therefore conclude logically that I am saved. So 1 John 5:13 can only be true if God endorses the use of logic as applied to His Word.
So yes, you can and should be logical. But we must realize (1) that our ability to think rationally comes from God. (2) Our ability to think rationally has suffered the effects of the fall, so we don’t always think rightly. (3) We should therefore allow the Bible to systematically expose and correct our faulty reasoning.
Wait there’s one problem on my part.
About accepting things arbitrarily and then justifying them later.
So if we accept something as the basis for determining truth (logic) arbitrarily, then every logical conclusion thereof will flow from this presupposition. And then when we try to justify it, we are then using the standard arbitrarily to prove its own self. Since the justification flows from the presupposition, and we use that justification to prove the presupposition.
Yeah, this is kind of complicated…
It is a limitation and requirement of human nature that there are some things that must be accepted before they can be justified. Otherwise, we could never even “get started” in our reasoning. Logic is one such thing. God knew that we would need logic to reason about anything (even logic itself). So He hardwired us to know and accept from our conception at least some of the principles of logic. It is only later that we discover that the Christian worldview is the necessary truth beneath these principles. Babies can’t help but be irrational; they cannot objectively justify their beliefs, at least not to others. The point of education is to help us to become rational. We are supposed to learn to justify our beliefs, and abandon those beliefs that cannot be eventually justified.
In the Christian worldview, our acceptance of laws of logic makes sense, even though we have used logic in our reasoning. So, there is a degree of circularity, but it’s not arbitrary because I haven’t merely accepted logic for the sake of proving logic. Rather, I’ve found that in the Christian worldview, laws of logic are to be expected; they are justified ultimately in God. But apart from the Christian worldview, laws of logic can never be ultimately justified – even after the fact. So, to be rational, a person should (1) become a Christian, or (2) stop believing in laws of logic. But since option #2 cannot really be called “rational” since it abandons the principles of reasoning, we are left with only one rational option: Christianity. That’s why I often say that the only alternative to Christianity is irrationality.
Very well said
Wait, so we must justify logic with the same thing we are trying to prove correct with logic?
Justifying logic with the Bible, which we are using logic to prove correct so we can justify logic.
Isn’t that arbitrarily circular?
There may be a degree of circularity, as is always the case when defending a foundational truth claim. But it isn’t arbitrary because we have a very good reason to proceed in this way; namely the alternative leads to absurdity. Essentially, you can either reason within the Christian circle, or you can’t reason at all. So I have a very good reason for reasoning within the Christian circle: it makes reasoning possible.
Jason, what is your explanation for why the majority of experts in various fields, even those who are Christian, don’t appear to see what you claim to be so obvious?
Romans 1:18-25
Dr. Lisle,
Would you agree that some concepts are just mere ideas, while other concepts are universally and invariantly true?
If so, would you grant the metaphysical naturalist the existence of the former in his worldview? Or would you not even grant him that?
Some concepts are true propositions, others are false. But concepts are always conceptual and therefore abstract and non-material. So the naturalist couldn’t even have wrong ideas if his worldview were true.
Couldn’t the naturalist just say, “yes, but concepts must come from the brain, which is physical, therefore we can account for non material things, because they’re contingent upon physical things.” In fact, that is the kind of stuff I’ve heard them say.
Yes. Although, at that point the naturalist has given up pure naturalism in the sense of materialism. That is, he has admitted that non-material things do indeed exist. (Though he thinks they are always caused by material things – but that claim is unjustified.) He still cannot account for rationality, which involves the ability to choose the best option. But if thoughts were purely the result of physical chemistry (which has no choice), then rationality cannot exist. Also, he would not be able to account for the universal nature of laws of logic. If they merely result from physical things in the universe, then they would be different in different places since different parts of the universe have different materials and chemical reactions.
Jason, why are conceptual things not permitted in your view of naturalism?
For example, it seems to me that the relative distance between(for example) NY and LA is similarly “non-material”, but I don’t see why that relationship must be excluded in naturalism.
Naturalism – we’re talking about metaphysical naturalism here – assumes that nature can be entirely accounted for by material principles and natural/physical causes, such as mass and energy. Concepts, however, are non-material.
Dear Doctor, it is with great joy that I have discovered You are alive and well (or so I hope), and that You have, once again, allowed comments on Your website. I trust that while Your personal and professional life keeps You busy, You will nonetheless find some time to go back to our discussion about shortcomings of both our epistemological doctrines, mine and yours.
[Dr. Lisle: Hello Gimel and welcome back. I’m sorry to cut your post short, but you’ll see I’ve added some new rules for posting comments and one of these is that I’m only allowing relatively short posts. It’s not that I’m offended by longer ones, but please understand that I maintain this blog in my spare time, and I just don’t have the time to read through and respond to “novels” in addition to my other endeavors. A paragraph or two is fine. But it will have to be limited to that. Thanks for your understanding. All the best.]
Dr. Lisle,
I want to thank you for the work you’re doing. The presuppositional approach has been like a guiding beacon for me. I felt like I was looking into a fog, without an inkling where to begin determining what was true. Now I understand that it’s necessary to presuppose certain things, and then think them through from there.
I have a question for you.
We would call it foolish for a materialist to explain the laws of logic as “just the way it is,” just the way that the universe works.
And yet, we say that laws of logic arise from the nature of God–they are a part of the way He is.
What is the difference bewteen the two?
Hi Emily. Thanks for the encouraging feedback. I’m glad the resources have been helpful.
Regarding the critic claiming that the laws of logic, or laws of nature are “just the way it is” – the problem is that the claim lacks any justification. The naturalist is free to propose that the universe is eternal, and therefore requires no antecedent cause. But he still must justify this belief, and explain how he knows that the universe is indeed the way that he believes it is. This turns out to be impossible because he does not have universal experience, and thus he has no epistemological basis for making any universal claims. The Christian claim is that God is eternal and has no antecedent cause; but this claim can be justified. We know some details about God’s nature by revelation: God knows everything by virtue of His nature, and He has revealed to us in His Word some truths about Himself.
Revelation could be mistaken.
[Dr. Lisle: Not God’s revelation. One of the key characteristics of God is that He is omniscient (all-knowing). Thus He cannot be mistaken since He knows everything.]
God could be under the influence of a cartesian demon, and only think he knows everything. How could God rule out this possibility without assuming it false from the outset?
[Dr. Lisle: God cannot be “under” the influence of anything, because one of the key characteristics of God is that He is sovereign (and thus nothing is above Him). It’s a contradiction in terms, and thus irrational, to have God being mistaken about something.]
God could be lying or mistaken.
[Dr. Lisle: God can’t be mistaken because He knows everything – that’s part of the definition of God. And the biblical God cannot lie – that’s also part of His nature as articulated in Scripture. So your statement is analytically false. It would be like claiming, “a bachelor could be married.”]
Perhaps God has a sufficient purpose which justifies misleading humanity in a similar fashion to claims that God has a sufficient reason to allow evil?
[Dr. Lisle: God cannot lie. It’s not just that God doesn’t lie, rather He cannot lie because it is contrary to His nature. He is truth (John 14:6). What God declares determines what reality is (e.g. Genesis 1:3). Also, the claim “God might lie” would make knowledge impossible, because there would be no rational basis to trust our senses, our mind, or laws of logic if the Creator were not honest.]
How do you rule out this as a possibility?
[Dr. Lisle: It’s self-contradictory. In the same way I can rule out the claim, “a bachelor might be married” by virtue of the fact that a bachelor is defined to be unmarried, I can likewise rule out the claim that “God might be mistaken/lying” by virtue of the fact that it is contrary to the definition of God as articulated in the Bible.]
This is a major problem I have with atheistic/evolutionist unbelievers in general. They often like to portray themselves as “reasonable”. In fact, they tend to pit their beliefs versus the Christian belief as “reason vs faith” or something like that. Bill Nye in his debate called himself a “reasonable man” several times.
Yet, when pressed, unbelievers cannot give a rational justification for their most foundational beliefs. In fact, not only can they not do this, they often won’t even give it an attempt… yet, they want Christians to view them as “reasonable”. Claiming to believe something simply because, “It’s just that way” is about as arbitrary as it gets, and they wouldn’t accept that answer from us.
For example, if I said, “Jesus is the Creator”, naturally they would ask, “How do you know that?” But if my response was something like, “Well, He’s the Creator just because He is”, they would not accept that answer (and rightfully so). Unbelievers are walking contradictions and the disturbing thing to me is that they seem to be ok with that even when challenged.
Dear Doctor, well enough. Long story short then. You have never proven that induction in material world (as opposed to mathematics, that, as a language, is beyond reality and beyond physics) is possible, You merely claim it is.
[Dr. Lisle: I’ve already covered this many times before, but to summarize: In the Christian worldview induction is indeed possible because God upholds the universe in a basically consistent way for our benefit. We have a promise from an all-knowing God who never lies that certain patterns will be in the future as they have been in the past (e.g. Genesis 8:22). Thus, we have a very good reason to believe that past experience will be a good predictor of future success. Therefore, the Christian has a rational basis for the success of science. But the non-Christian does not.]
Your definition of matter (“extended in space”) and, consequently, of materialism, is hopelessly outdated, has been for the better part of a century.
[Dr. Lisle: Since this claim is unsupported, and you offer no alternative, I can only dismiss it.]
You seem not to grasp the difference between map and territory, especially between mathematics (including logics, classical and otherwise) and physical reality. Thus You do not appreciate that mathematics is useful in physics because for generations it was developed mostly in that direction – until WW2 physicists were mostly considered mathematicians and with good reason. The map is a good approximation of territory because it was made (by humans!) to be that way.
[Dr. Lisle: That just isn’t true to the nature of mathematics. Mathematics has a reality that is independent of the physical universe. It’s easy to demonstrate this. As one example, I can mathematically derive the hyper-volume (the 4-dimensional equivalent of volume) of a hyper-sphere – a shape that does not (and indeed cannot) exist in our three-dimensional space. Yet, the hyper-sphere is perfectly meaningful, and its hyper-volume is discovered, not determined, by humans using mathematics. Another example might be the Mandelbrot set – this wonderful entity was discovered by humans (not created by them because they were surprised to find it), is meaningful, and yet has no physical substance to it. That is, the Mandelbrot set does not exist physically.]
In E=mc^2 there can be no 2.73…, not if we follow established conventions of integrating and definitions of energy (work is integral of force with respect to distance over trajectory J=kg*m^2*s^-2), if we do not follow conventions I can easily make 2+2!=4, exactly as You dared me to. Should I go on? I think I should, Doctor.
[Dr. Lisle: If mathematics were merely conventional, an invention of humans, then we could have made it differently. Yet that just isn’t the case. Aside from matters of notation and definitions, mathematics is set by God. And so you cannot make 2+2 equal anything by 4 once the symbols are defined. The notation is a human convention to be sure, but the rules are not. Nor can we say that mathematical rules are contingent upon (or a “map” of) the physical universe. This is because, as I pointed out previously, they go beyond the physical universe.]
Even if we say that God ‘thinks’ (human thought is a temporal process, God is extra-temporal so His ‘thoughts’ are far beyond the scope of human experience and human definitions), it may be possible that His ‘thought process’ DOES NOT follow our logic.
[Dr. Lisle: It would be more accurate to say that logic follows His thoughts, rather than the reverse. In the Christian worldview, God is truth (John 14:6). His mind determines what is true, and He has made us in His image so that we have a limited and finite ability to think in a way that is consistent with His character. This happens when we think logically and truthfully.]
Also, we have no guarantee that laws governing nature really ARE mathematical and/or logical.
[Dr. Lisle: You don’t – on your worldview. But the Christian does. It is God’s power that upholds and controls the physical universe (Hebrews 1:3), and since God thinks logically and mathematically, the physical universe will necessarily behave in a logical and mathematically way.]
Incidentally, the very existence of Almighty God that takes interests in our universe and intervenes every now and then shows us that one of the most basics laws of nature is: God does whatever He wants, whenever He wants, however He wants and if anyone wants established rules, tough luck.
[Dr. Lisle: That’s a bit of truth mixed with a lot of error, resulting in a straw-man fallacy. God doesn’t “intervene every now and then.” Rather, He constantly controls every aspect of the universe at all times. The laws of physics are not machines that God set up and then left to work on their own. Rather, they are descriptions of the way that God normally upholds nature. God has promised to uphold nature in a way that is basically consistent with repeating patterns (again, Genesis 8:22). Can God on occasion do something unusual? Sure. But given God’s promise of basic uniformity, exceptions would be very, very rare, and only for an exceptionally important reason.]
With God of Bible every law of physics can be swept away at a moments notice,
[Dr. Lisle: Another straw-man fallacy. God has promised basic uniformity. Thus, any exceptions would be very rare and always temporary.]
many were (every time Israel goes to war, for example, conservation of angular momentum in Earth’s motion is threatened, thus spake ‘literal’ interpretation of Book of Joshua). Tell me, Doctor, at this moment do we sacrifice uniformity in nature or do we do start professing God of deists as opposed to God of Christianity?
[Dr. Lisle: That’s a bifurcation fallacy, and a rather obvious one at that. Namely, you give two options, neither of which are remotely biblical. (1) God constantly changes/suspends laws of nature, or (2) God never changes or suspends laws of nature. The biblical position is that God normally upholds the universe in a mathematically consistent and uniform way; any exceptions would be very rare, temporary, and for an extraordinary and specific purpose.]
So, Christianity does not preclude scepticism, it encourages it.
[Dr. Lisle: Since the premises are false, that conclusion doesn’t hold.]
Incidentally, how do You know You have ever had a Bible in Your hand, much less that it tells the truth?
[Dr. Lisle: I’ve done my homework on the issue. There is a great deal of literature available on the topic of textual criticism.]
Hope You don’t mind the third paragraph, I’ll try to keep it short. I’m awaiting Your response, in which You present Your point with clarity, with dread, Doctor, for I fear I have drawn Your ire. Unfortunately. Or fortunately, who can judge? All the best in New Year, Doctor, and merry Christmas! Season’s greetings to fstdt crew, peace to all people of good will. Short enough? Here’s hoping.
[Dr. Lisle: All the best.]
And one more thing (Parthian shot, so to speak) – You keep using word ‘objective’ in a most confusing manner, Doctor, would You care to give Your definition or point me to the dictionary You’re using?
Something is ‘objective’ if it is independent of the feelings or opinions of an individual, and is therefore the same for all people. It is the opposite of ‘subjective’ where something is based on personal feelings and opinions, and therefore can vary from person to person. A person’s favorite color is an example of subjective. The law of gravity is objective.
Would it be arbitrary to profess a belief in God since the Bible says that everyone knows that God exists?
This question is only to Dr. Lisle, any atheist response will be ignored.
No, it’s not arbitrary to profess a belief in God because we do have good reasons to believe in God. God has revealed Himself in nature, in our conscience, and most specifically in His Word. Apart from His existence, we would be unable to justify anything else. So I would claim that belief in God is the most well-justified claim that is possible to make.
Sorry for posting a multitude of comments.
So, i got it that the one difference between a person who gets saved is that the person who gets saved professes their knowledge that God exists. However, the person who does not get saved, suppresses, or conceals his knowledge that God exist.
Now, my question is, will a person get saved if they profess their knowledge that God exists, without completely becoming aware of it. Or, before they justify their knowledge, of their knowledge of God existing?
Thanks Dr. Lisle!
~~ZG
It’s not just the existence of God that must be acknowledged for salvation. Rather, the person must repent of his sin (show a sincere regret in failing to live up to God’s standard, and a desire to not sin anymore), and trust in God for salvation. Those who sincerely repent and desire to serve God, and who trust in Him and call upon Him to save them, God will most certainly save. Salvation is an act of God’s grace, and it is received through faith in Him. The ability to clearly articulate one’s justification for the existence of God is not required for salvation. Only faith in God is required.