Sign up to save your podcasts
Or
Share Truth and Proof – Part 4 – The Basics of Logic
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Or
Truth and Proof – Part 4 – The Basics of Logic
Episode 144 – Truth and Proof – Part 4 – The Basics of Logic
Welcome to Anchored by Truth brought to you by Crystal Sea Books. In John 14:6, Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life.” The goal of Anchored by Truth is to encourage everyone to grow in the Christian faith by anchoring themselves to the secure truth found in the inspired, inerrant, and infallible word of God.
Script:
Come now, let us reason together, says the LORD…
Isaiah, Chapter 1, verse 18, English Standard Version
********
VK: Hello! I’m Victoria K. Welcome to Anchored by Truth brought to you by Crystal Sea Books. Today we’re going to continue with the series we recently started on Anchored by Truth that we calling “Truth and Proof.” As we mentioned in our first couple of episodes this series was inspired by a teaching series that Dr. Gregg Alexander did for his Sunday school class a few years ago. The reason we call this series truth and proof is because we’re going through a step-by-step reasoning process to show that it is possible to know the truth and prove that the Christian faith is strongly supported by logic, reason, and evidence. We’re following Dr. Alexander’s teaching approach because he did a magnificent job of clearly establishing the truth and proof of the Christian faith. I’m in the studio today with RD Fierro, author and founder of Crystal Sea Books. RD, where are we headed today?
RD: I’d also like to welcome all the listeners today and thank them for joining us. This is another one of the series that we do that requires our listeners to really engage their brains and think more deeply about their faith. We know this can take some extra effort but we strongly believe that those who do it will be richly rewarded – not only because they will come a deeper and richer understanding of their faith but also because they are being obedient to the command that Jesus gave in the Gospel of Mark, chapter 12, verse 30.
VK: In the New Living Translation that verse says “And you must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, all your mind, and all your strength.” So, this series is one in which we are certainly giving listeners a chance to love the Lord with all their minds.
RD: That is definitely true. But in diving more deeply into the underpinnings of their faith the listeners are also making a determined effort – that’s strength. And they are demonstrating that they want a deeper relationship with the author of their salvation – so that is expressing their heart’s desire.
VK: And the reason we believe they will be rewarded is because all of that represents one form of obedience to the Lord. And the Lord rewards obedience. And in a certain sense it is as hard, or harder, to be obedient to the Lord when it comes to the use of our time and minds as it is with the use of our money.
RD: That is also true. A lot of time when we think about what we are called to give to the Lord we think primarily in terms of our money. Or sometimes we may think of our time – whether we volunteer at church, or a homeless shelter, or at a crisis pregnancy center. All of those are certainly important. But when we apply ourselves to studying our faith there is a sense in which we are giving to the Lord in a more personal and intimate way. It takes a minute or two to write a check or do an online donation. Serving at church or a parachurch ministry takes more time but it may not engage our minds. I can mow the church lawn or help with the bake sale and not fully engage my mind. And I certainly don’t want to diminish the importance of doing any of that. But when I sit down to study the Bible, the background and meaning of the texts, and especially when I prepare myself to be a better witness to my friends and neighbors – that can be hard, really hard.
VK: So, the people who do it are truly showing where their priorities lie. And studying not only what they believe but why they believe it demonstrates they are placing a very high priority on the things of God. So, how are we going to help the listeners do that today? In our last couple of episodes we’ve spent a lot of our time talking about truth. We did that because we insist that the Bible is true. But that insistence would be meaningless if truth didn’t exist in the first place.
RD: Well, let’s start out by briefly reviewing some of the progress we’ve made so far. Truth is what corresponds to the facts, i.e., it corresponds to reality. Truth is absolute, and the absoluteness of it cannot be denied without using thoughts and words and arguments form others that are meant to be understood by us as absolutely true. Absolute truth is objective, i.e., it corresponds to the object to which it refers. It is not dependent on our opinions, observations, calculations, emotions, attitudes, or knowledge in any way – it simply “is what is.”
VK: So, those are positive or affirmative statements about truth. But not all people agree with those affirmations. In our last episode of Anchored by Truth we covered some of the philosophies that deny those affirmations. Why don’t you briefly review some of those?
RD: I’d be glad to. Agnosticism says that absolute truth cannot be known, or, at least it says that we can know appearances of things, but we can’t know the thing in itself, i.e., we can’t know the essence of the thing. Skepticism says that we should doubt all claims of absolute truth. Relativism affirms that there is no absolute truth; and post-modernism refuses to admit to any absolute truth, or to even allow truth claims to be made.
VK: But none of those philosophies hold up under scrutiny do they? In effect, each of these four philosophies self-destructs under the weight of its own affirmations. This is very similar to a point that recurred during our “Lord of Logic” series. The classic example of a statement that is self-refuting is that there is no such thing as absolute truth. We should ask anyone who agrees with that statement whether the statement they say they agree with is absolutely true. So, this points out a concept that all thinking Christians must master. The first test we should always apply to a premise is the premise itself. If we would learn to do that we would quickly realize that much of what passes for sophisticated philosophy is actually nonsense.
RD: I agree. Let’s take a just a minute and see how each of these philosophies fails its own premise or test. Agnosticism has two forms. The strong form of agnosticism affirms that all truth is unknowable. The soft form of agnosticism says that at least we can’t know reality even if we can know appearances. If the agnostic is correct in his belief then he – and we – can’t even know the truth of his own statement. Skepticism affirms that we should doubt everything – except, of course, the statement that we should doubt all truth claims.
VK: Said slightly differently skeptics do not instruct us to doubt their claims – only the claims of others including those who say that absolute truth exists. All that really needs to be asked to the skeptic is, “are you sure, or should we both doubt what you are saying?”
RD: Correct. Relativism straightforwardly denies absolute truth and simply says that the best we can do is compare things to one another. So, the reply we make to the relativist is “should I take what you are saying as absolute truth, or is it also a ‘relative truth’?” Post modernism affirms the rule of “deconstructionism” which is to say that all statements except for the statement that all statements should be deconstructed. Post modernism changes the rules of communication to say that the meaning a statement contains is determined by listener not the speaker. Post-modernism permits the listener to “deconstruct” language such as changing the meaning of words to anything that suits the listener’s preferred worldview. So we would say to the post-modernist, “do you want me to understand what you are saying, or would you rather I understood it in the way that best suits my situation?”
VK: So, each one of these four philosophies denies that absolute truth exists but then goes on to uses absolute statements to define its own belief system. So each philosophy actually affirms that there is, after all, some absolute truth because if they always describe their own statements of belief as if they were absolutely true.
RD: Exactly.
VK: And just a reminder to our audience we addressed similar points in our “Lord of Logic” series which is available through most major podcasting apps. But part of the reason we’re going over all this now is to reinforce the point that there are certain concepts that are fundamental to all correct thinking and logic. And it’s becoming more and more essential that Christians become familiar with those concepts isn’t it?
RD: Yes, primarily as a way of enabling Christians to stand firm in their faith as so many criticisms are hurled at them. Some of these criticisms come from people who are seemingly well-educated and sophisticated, but as we’ve been describing when you examine what the actually believe, it’s just nonsense. So, one principle Christians should keep in mind when they encounter objections to our faith is to test the objection using its own criteria. As you mentioned, the first test we should always apply to a premise is the premise itself. Doing so is a relatively straightforward application of some of the basic laws of logic. Many commentators will recognize that, in logic, there are three fundamental laws, or some people call them principles, of all rational thought. They are:
• The law of identity (A is A).
• The law of non-contradiction (A is not non-A at the same time in the same relationship).
• The law of the excluded middle (either A or non-A).
VK: Well, those sound simple and obvious enough but let’s go over them individually just to be sure we’re all singing out of the same hymnal.
RD: The law of identity simply says that something is, and must be, itself. Now I know that sounds so simple that some people would wonder what the point is in stating such a law or principle. But the need for the law identity will become far more clear as we begin to consider questions about the legitimacy of faith or belief systems. For instance, one claim that is often made in contemporary culture is that all religious systems are equally valid – so it’s ok to believe whatever you want as long as you’re sincere. This claim obliterates the very considerable differences in religious systems. Some religions are monotheistic (belief in one God). Others are polytheistic (belief in many gods). Well, such differing claims are irreconcilably different. As such, if one is true the others are false. And the process of establishing this very important distinction begins by simply recognizing that a thing, a person, a belief system, is and must be itself. So, when you combine the law of identity with the law of non-contradiction you have the beginning of the logical process by which such distinctions are shown to be undeniably true.
VK: Formally stated the law of non-contradiction says that “A cannot be both A and non-A at the same time and in the same relationship.” The classic example is a woman who may be both a mother and a daughter at the same time but not in the same relationship. Mary cannot be the child of the same children to whom she is the mother.
RD: Right. Again, the law of non-contradiction is so obvious that it hardly seems necessary to state it, but all too often today it is necessary. There are belief systems and philosophies that say that it is possible to accept two contradictory things at the same time as being true. The statement that all religions are valid is in essence this kind of a claim. But again this is nonsense. The law of non-contradiction guards us from that nonsense and like all of these basic laws, or first principles, the law of non-contradiction cannot be denied without using it. If someone contends that the law of non-contradiction isn’t valid they are contending that the opposite premise must be true. Anyone who says that “opposites can both be true” does not give you the option of believing the opposite of that statement.
VK: So, like other first principles, the law of non-contradiction is undeniable. Norman Geisler says, “The direct basis for the law of non-contradiction is its self-evident nature. And the indirect proof is shown by the fact that any attempt to deny it implies it. That is, it is a necessary condition for all rational thought.” So, what about the law of the excluded middle (either A or non-A)?
RD: This, again, is an obvious but necessary observation. A good example would be the statement “I am sitting in a chair.” Now, if I am truly sitting in a chair, then all other possibilities for the position of my body are excluded. I am not standing, lying, or sitting in a sofa or bathtub.
VK: I, for one, am glad about the bathtub thing.
RD: So am I. It’s chilly in the studio this morning. At any rate, there are many conditions that are important to demonstrate the existence of God where it must be one way or another.
VK: I think we’re going to need an example of what you’re thinking about.
RD: We spoke in one of earlier episodes about the fact that it is important to have an absolutely firm starting point for proving that God exists. One such starting point is demonstrating that we exist. And we said that one way we can demonstrate our own existence is through Descartes famous maxim “I think therefore I am.” Something must be something before it can do anything. Thinking is doing so I must be in existence before I could think. So, a slightly different way of stating the possible choices that we’re choosing between is “being or non-being.”
VK: In other words something can, and I’m not quoting Shakespeare though it sounds like it, something can “be or not be.” There is no third possibility. Nothing can hide in the cracks between being and non-being. We either exist or we don’t. But if we do exist, which we do because we all think, then we are then off on a search to explain our existence. But that would be getting ahead of where we are in our line of reasoning.
RD: It’s a little ahead but not by much because one of ideas we’re combatting – and we’ve sort of alluded to this – is the idea that religious pluralism is valid.
VK: Religious pluralism is the belief that every religion is true. Religious pluralism says that each religion provides a genuine encounter with the Ultimate, whoever or whatever that is. Religious pluralism says one may be better than the others, but all religions are adequate. In this view all roads lead to “God,” all sincere belief systems are valid, and each religion is only an incomplete view of the whole picture. Some people who support religious pluralism like to use the parable of three blind men and the elephant. One felt the leg and said, “it’s a tree;” one felt the tail and said, “it’s a rope;” one felt the side and said, “it’s a wall.” They then compare notes on what they felt, and learn they are in complete disagreement. The story is used to indicate that reality may be viewed differently depending upon one's perspective, suggesting that what seems an absolute truth may be relative due to the deceptive nature of half-truths – that people tend to understand only a tiny portion of reality and then extrapolate all manner of dogmas from that, each claiming that only his understanding is correct. This parable is used to refute the idea of absolute truth by implying that they are all right.
RD: Yes. Religious pluralism is a very popular idea in our contemporary culture and even some so-called mainline Christian denominations have accepted some form of it. And the parable you cited is a common way religious pluralism is defended. But let’s take a second look at the parable. Far from it proving that all belief systems are equally valid, in fact, it does the opposite. Look at the facts: all any of the men perceived was an elephant! And their sincerity in what they believed did not change that fact. Plus, the men are blind! They can’t see what’s in front of them. Their visual impairment does not confer on to them the power of sound judgment. Rather than all of them being right, they are all wrong! So, the absolute truth, i.e., what corresponds to the way things really are, is that 1) the animal they felt is an elephant, and 2) they are absolutely wrong. What can we gain from this? Our goal should be to test for and determine the truth. Sincerity is not a test for truth – correspondence is.
VK: Religious pluralism evaluates Christianity this way: “Christianity is exclusive; it claims to be the one and only true religion. This places Christians at odds with the modern movements to study comparative religion and work at interfaith communing. One Christian apologist, Alister McGrath, put is this way. “How can Christianity’s claims to truth be taken seriously when there are so many rival alternatives and when truth itself has become a devalued notion? No one can lay claim to possession of the truth. It is all a question of perspective. All claims to truth are equally valid. There is no universal or privileged vantage point that allows anyone to decide what is right and what is wrong.” That’s from his book, Challenge of Pluralism, page 365.
RD: So, religious pluralism is one belief system that we can evaluate using the laws of logic that we were discussing. And when we do we find out that religious pluralism violates the law of non-contradiction and the law of the excluded middle. If we are to take religious pluralism seriously we find out that it requires that we simultaneously embrace contradictory propositions. Let’s go back to monotheism vs polytheism. Monotheism says there is one and only one God. Polytheism says there are many gods. If monotheism is true then polytheism is false. If polytheism is true then monotheism is false. The two different basic religious premises cannot be true and there is no third possibility. So, we are forced to make a choice between the two. And logic and reason tell us that the truth must be found in the premise that corresponds to reality.
VK: What you’re saying is that Logic tells us that there must be a real set of facts somewhere – even if we don’t know them – that answers our most basic questions of whether or not a “god” exists, and, if so, which god. That’s one of the two basic points that is essential to good Christian apologetics. At this point we’ve learned enough to be absolutely certain of at least one thing: a religion that does not correspond to the facts is a false religion – because truth corresponds to reality in religion as well as everything else. And that brings us to the step number two in the process of proving not only the existence of God, but of the truth that there is One and Only One God and that God is the God of the Bible.
RD: Right. In our process of proving those two main points we’ve now finished the process of demonstrating that truth is absolute and it is knowable. And we’ve shown that the laws of logic enable us to not only know that truth is absolute and knowable but also that they enable us to move forward in evaluating the various claims made by competing religious systems. Now in encounters with atheists, skeptics, relativists, family members, co-workers, people who knock on your door, or people who may be sitting beside you in the pew, this brief discussion of absolute truth may be all you need to convince someone that they are on the wrong track and need to get over to the truth side. But if a person cannot accept that truth is “telling it like it really is,” we’re going to have a tough time leading them to believe the Absolute Truth of Jesus Christ.
VK: But that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t try to help them. For some people just realizing that some of the current myths and popular belief systems lead to irreconcilable contradictions may be enough to put them on the road to truth. But for others we may have to provide more help in the same way it’s important to distinguish between real and counterfeit money. A twenty dollar bill and a counterfeit twenty dollar bill have many things in common, and, in fact, appear to have more similarities than differences: they are the same shape, color, and design, and they have the same words and pictures. But one is real and the other is not. How do we tell which is the counterfeit and which is real? The answer is by close examination and study in order to thoroughly know the real one. The same principle applies to our study of Christianity. Logic tells us that there must be a real set of facts somewhere – even if we don’t know them – that answers our most basic questions of whether or not a “god” exists, and, if so, which god.
RD: So, here’s where we are in our overall process of proving that there is a God and that that God is the God of the Bible. The claim that God exists is itself a truth claim. Well, we’ve shown that truth is absolute and knowable though we have to tackle the particular truth claim that God exists. But at least we know that absolute truth exists. And we’ve seen that the philosophies that disagree with the existence of absolute truth are all self-refuting. They all fail the test that is established by their central premise.
VK: For instance, if a skeptic says we must doubt everything we may ask the skeptic whether we’re allowed to doubt their demand that we doubt everything. If a relativist says all truth is relative we ask the relativist whether their claim about all truth being relative is an absolute or relative truth.
RD: Yes. And today we’ve seen that there are basic, self-evident, and irrefutable laws of logic which affirm that truth is knowable and absolute – and also affirm the self-defeating nature of the objections to the existence of absolute truth. These laws of logic, which are sometimes termed “first principles” cannot be refuted because their truth must be assumed in any attempted refutation. For instance anyone who contends that the law of non-contradiction doesn’t apply is contending there is an opposite principle that does apply. But they certainly don’t mean that their contention and the opposite are both equally applicable.
VK: Now we know that all of this can produce some head scratching and even some headaches. But once Christians master these principles it produces a Christian who can encounter the barrage of criticism aimed today at the Christian faith and emerge unscathed. And as important as that is for adults it’s even more important for our kids and grandkids. Apologetics, as an area of study, isn’t first and foremost a way to win arguments. It’s a way to protect immature believers as well as hopefully rescue some others from the fire. Well, sounds like a great time to pray. Today let’s listen to a prayer for restoration of the worship of the one true God to our communities and nation since it is only through that restoration that our unsaved friends and neighbors have the hope for salvation.
---- PRAYER FOR ILLUMINATION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT
VK: We’d like to remind our audience that a lot of our radio episodes are linked together in series of topics so if they missed any episodes or if they just want to hear one again, all of these episodes are available on your favorite podcast app. To find them just search on “Anchored by Truth by Crystal Sea Books.”
If you’d like to hear more, try out crystalseabooks.com where “We’re not famous but our Boss is!”
(Bible Quote from the English Standard Version)
Isaiah, Chapter 1, verse 18, English Standard Version
View all episodes
By R.D.Fierro
5
11 ratings
Episode 144 – Truth and Proof – Part 4 – The Basics of Logic
Welcome to Anchored by Truth brought to you by Crystal Sea Books. In John 14:6, Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life.” The goal of Anchored by Truth is to encourage everyone to grow in the Christian faith by anchoring themselves to the secure truth found in the inspired, inerrant, and infallible word of God.
Script:
Come now, let us reason together, says the LORD…
Isaiah, Chapter 1, verse 18, English Standard Version
********
VK: Hello! I’m Victoria K. Welcome to Anchored by Truth brought to you by Crystal Sea Books. Today we’re going to continue with the series we recently started on Anchored by Truth that we calling “Truth and Proof.” As we mentioned in our first couple of episodes this series was inspired by a teaching series that Dr. Gregg Alexander did for his Sunday school class a few years ago. The reason we call this series truth and proof is because we’re going through a step-by-step reasoning process to show that it is possible to know the truth and prove that the Christian faith is strongly supported by logic, reason, and evidence. We’re following Dr. Alexander’s teaching approach because he did a magnificent job of clearly establishing the truth and proof of the Christian faith. I’m in the studio today with RD Fierro, author and founder of Crystal Sea Books. RD, where are we headed today?
RD: I’d also like to welcome all the listeners today and thank them for joining us. This is another one of the series that we do that requires our listeners to really engage their brains and think more deeply about their faith. We know this can take some extra effort but we strongly believe that those who do it will be richly rewarded – not only because they will come a deeper and richer understanding of their faith but also because they are being obedient to the command that Jesus gave in the Gospel of Mark, chapter 12, verse 30.
VK: In the New Living Translation that verse says “And you must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, all your mind, and all your strength.” So, this series is one in which we are certainly giving listeners a chance to love the Lord with all their minds.
RD: That is definitely true. But in diving more deeply into the underpinnings of their faith the listeners are also making a determined effort – that’s strength. And they are demonstrating that they want a deeper relationship with the author of their salvation – so that is expressing their heart’s desire.
VK: And the reason we believe they will be rewarded is because all of that represents one form of obedience to the Lord. And the Lord rewards obedience. And in a certain sense it is as hard, or harder, to be obedient to the Lord when it comes to the use of our time and minds as it is with the use of our money.
RD: That is also true. A lot of time when we think about what we are called to give to the Lord we think primarily in terms of our money. Or sometimes we may think of our time – whether we volunteer at church, or a homeless shelter, or at a crisis pregnancy center. All of those are certainly important. But when we apply ourselves to studying our faith there is a sense in which we are giving to the Lord in a more personal and intimate way. It takes a minute or two to write a check or do an online donation. Serving at church or a parachurch ministry takes more time but it may not engage our minds. I can mow the church lawn or help with the bake sale and not fully engage my mind. And I certainly don’t want to diminish the importance of doing any of that. But when I sit down to study the Bible, the background and meaning of the texts, and especially when I prepare myself to be a better witness to my friends and neighbors – that can be hard, really hard.
VK: So, the people who do it are truly showing where their priorities lie. And studying not only what they believe but why they believe it demonstrates they are placing a very high priority on the things of God. So, how are we going to help the listeners do that today? In our last couple of episodes we’ve spent a lot of our time talking about truth. We did that because we insist that the Bible is true. But that insistence would be meaningless if truth didn’t exist in the first place.
RD: Well, let’s start out by briefly reviewing some of the progress we’ve made so far. Truth is what corresponds to the facts, i.e., it corresponds to reality. Truth is absolute, and the absoluteness of it cannot be denied without using thoughts and words and arguments form others that are meant to be understood by us as absolutely true. Absolute truth is objective, i.e., it corresponds to the object to which it refers. It is not dependent on our opinions, observations, calculations, emotions, attitudes, or knowledge in any way – it simply “is what is.”
VK: So, those are positive or affirmative statements about truth. But not all people agree with those affirmations. In our last episode of Anchored by Truth we covered some of the philosophies that deny those affirmations. Why don’t you briefly review some of those?
RD: I’d be glad to. Agnosticism says that absolute truth cannot be known, or, at least it says that we can know appearances of things, but we can’t know the thing in itself, i.e., we can’t know the essence of the thing. Skepticism says that we should doubt all claims of absolute truth. Relativism affirms that there is no absolute truth; and post-modernism refuses to admit to any absolute truth, or to even allow truth claims to be made.
VK: But none of those philosophies hold up under scrutiny do they? In effect, each of these four philosophies self-destructs under the weight of its own affirmations. This is very similar to a point that recurred during our “Lord of Logic” series. The classic example of a statement that is self-refuting is that there is no such thing as absolute truth. We should ask anyone who agrees with that statement whether the statement they say they agree with is absolutely true. So, this points out a concept that all thinking Christians must master. The first test we should always apply to a premise is the premise itself. If we would learn to do that we would quickly realize that much of what passes for sophisticated philosophy is actually nonsense.
RD: I agree. Let’s take a just a minute and see how each of these philosophies fails its own premise or test. Agnosticism has two forms. The strong form of agnosticism affirms that all truth is unknowable. The soft form of agnosticism says that at least we can’t know reality even if we can know appearances. If the agnostic is correct in his belief then he – and we – can’t even know the truth of his own statement. Skepticism affirms that we should doubt everything – except, of course, the statement that we should doubt all truth claims.
VK: Said slightly differently skeptics do not instruct us to doubt their claims – only the claims of others including those who say that absolute truth exists. All that really needs to be asked to the skeptic is, “are you sure, or should we both doubt what you are saying?”
RD: Correct. Relativism straightforwardly denies absolute truth and simply says that the best we can do is compare things to one another. So, the reply we make to the relativist is “should I take what you are saying as absolute truth, or is it also a ‘relative truth’?” Post modernism affirms the rule of “deconstructionism” which is to say that all statements except for the statement that all statements should be deconstructed. Post modernism changes the rules of communication to say that the meaning a statement contains is determined by listener not the speaker. Post-modernism permits the listener to “deconstruct” language such as changing the meaning of words to anything that suits the listener’s preferred worldview. So we would say to the post-modernist, “do you want me to understand what you are saying, or would you rather I understood it in the way that best suits my situation?”
VK: So, each one of these four philosophies denies that absolute truth exists but then goes on to uses absolute statements to define its own belief system. So each philosophy actually affirms that there is, after all, some absolute truth because if they always describe their own statements of belief as if they were absolutely true.
RD: Exactly.
VK: And just a reminder to our audience we addressed similar points in our “Lord of Logic” series which is available through most major podcasting apps. But part of the reason we’re going over all this now is to reinforce the point that there are certain concepts that are fundamental to all correct thinking and logic. And it’s becoming more and more essential that Christians become familiar with those concepts isn’t it?
RD: Yes, primarily as a way of enabling Christians to stand firm in their faith as so many criticisms are hurled at them. Some of these criticisms come from people who are seemingly well-educated and sophisticated, but as we’ve been describing when you examine what the actually believe, it’s just nonsense. So, one principle Christians should keep in mind when they encounter objections to our faith is to test the objection using its own criteria. As you mentioned, the first test we should always apply to a premise is the premise itself. Doing so is a relatively straightforward application of some of the basic laws of logic. Many commentators will recognize that, in logic, there are three fundamental laws, or some people call them principles, of all rational thought. They are:
• The law of identity (A is A).
• The law of non-contradiction (A is not non-A at the same time in the same relationship).
• The law of the excluded middle (either A or non-A).
VK: Well, those sound simple and obvious enough but let’s go over them individually just to be sure we’re all singing out of the same hymnal.
RD: The law of identity simply says that something is, and must be, itself. Now I know that sounds so simple that some people would wonder what the point is in stating such a law or principle. But the need for the law identity will become far more clear as we begin to consider questions about the legitimacy of faith or belief systems. For instance, one claim that is often made in contemporary culture is that all religious systems are equally valid – so it’s ok to believe whatever you want as long as you’re sincere. This claim obliterates the very considerable differences in religious systems. Some religions are monotheistic (belief in one God). Others are polytheistic (belief in many gods). Well, such differing claims are irreconcilably different. As such, if one is true the others are false. And the process of establishing this very important distinction begins by simply recognizing that a thing, a person, a belief system, is and must be itself. So, when you combine the law of identity with the law of non-contradiction you have the beginning of the logical process by which such distinctions are shown to be undeniably true.
VK: Formally stated the law of non-contradiction says that “A cannot be both A and non-A at the same time and in the same relationship.” The classic example is a woman who may be both a mother and a daughter at the same time but not in the same relationship. Mary cannot be the child of the same children to whom she is the mother.
RD: Right. Again, the law of non-contradiction is so obvious that it hardly seems necessary to state it, but all too often today it is necessary. There are belief systems and philosophies that say that it is possible to accept two contradictory things at the same time as being true. The statement that all religions are valid is in essence this kind of a claim. But again this is nonsense. The law of non-contradiction guards us from that nonsense and like all of these basic laws, or first principles, the law of non-contradiction cannot be denied without using it. If someone contends that the law of non-contradiction isn’t valid they are contending that the opposite premise must be true. Anyone who says that “opposites can both be true” does not give you the option of believing the opposite of that statement.
VK: So, like other first principles, the law of non-contradiction is undeniable. Norman Geisler says, “The direct basis for the law of non-contradiction is its self-evident nature. And the indirect proof is shown by the fact that any attempt to deny it implies it. That is, it is a necessary condition for all rational thought.” So, what about the law of the excluded middle (either A or non-A)?
RD: This, again, is an obvious but necessary observation. A good example would be the statement “I am sitting in a chair.” Now, if I am truly sitting in a chair, then all other possibilities for the position of my body are excluded. I am not standing, lying, or sitting in a sofa or bathtub.
VK: I, for one, am glad about the bathtub thing.
RD: So am I. It’s chilly in the studio this morning. At any rate, there are many conditions that are important to demonstrate the existence of God where it must be one way or another.
VK: I think we’re going to need an example of what you’re thinking about.
RD: We spoke in one of earlier episodes about the fact that it is important to have an absolutely firm starting point for proving that God exists. One such starting point is demonstrating that we exist. And we said that one way we can demonstrate our own existence is through Descartes famous maxim “I think therefore I am.” Something must be something before it can do anything. Thinking is doing so I must be in existence before I could think. So, a slightly different way of stating the possible choices that we’re choosing between is “being or non-being.”
VK: In other words something can, and I’m not quoting Shakespeare though it sounds like it, something can “be or not be.” There is no third possibility. Nothing can hide in the cracks between being and non-being. We either exist or we don’t. But if we do exist, which we do because we all think, then we are then off on a search to explain our existence. But that would be getting ahead of where we are in our line of reasoning.
RD: It’s a little ahead but not by much because one of ideas we’re combatting – and we’ve sort of alluded to this – is the idea that religious pluralism is valid.
VK: Religious pluralism is the belief that every religion is true. Religious pluralism says that each religion provides a genuine encounter with the Ultimate, whoever or whatever that is. Religious pluralism says one may be better than the others, but all religions are adequate. In this view all roads lead to “God,” all sincere belief systems are valid, and each religion is only an incomplete view of the whole picture. Some people who support religious pluralism like to use the parable of three blind men and the elephant. One felt the leg and said, “it’s a tree;” one felt the tail and said, “it’s a rope;” one felt the side and said, “it’s a wall.” They then compare notes on what they felt, and learn they are in complete disagreement. The story is used to indicate that reality may be viewed differently depending upon one's perspective, suggesting that what seems an absolute truth may be relative due to the deceptive nature of half-truths – that people tend to understand only a tiny portion of reality and then extrapolate all manner of dogmas from that, each claiming that only his understanding is correct. This parable is used to refute the idea of absolute truth by implying that they are all right.
RD: Yes. Religious pluralism is a very popular idea in our contemporary culture and even some so-called mainline Christian denominations have accepted some form of it. And the parable you cited is a common way religious pluralism is defended. But let’s take a second look at the parable. Far from it proving that all belief systems are equally valid, in fact, it does the opposite. Look at the facts: all any of the men perceived was an elephant! And their sincerity in what they believed did not change that fact. Plus, the men are blind! They can’t see what’s in front of them. Their visual impairment does not confer on to them the power of sound judgment. Rather than all of them being right, they are all wrong! So, the absolute truth, i.e., what corresponds to the way things really are, is that 1) the animal they felt is an elephant, and 2) they are absolutely wrong. What can we gain from this? Our goal should be to test for and determine the truth. Sincerity is not a test for truth – correspondence is.
VK: Religious pluralism evaluates Christianity this way: “Christianity is exclusive; it claims to be the one and only true religion. This places Christians at odds with the modern movements to study comparative religion and work at interfaith communing. One Christian apologist, Alister McGrath, put is this way. “How can Christianity’s claims to truth be taken seriously when there are so many rival alternatives and when truth itself has become a devalued notion? No one can lay claim to possession of the truth. It is all a question of perspective. All claims to truth are equally valid. There is no universal or privileged vantage point that allows anyone to decide what is right and what is wrong.” That’s from his book, Challenge of Pluralism, page 365.
RD: So, religious pluralism is one belief system that we can evaluate using the laws of logic that we were discussing. And when we do we find out that religious pluralism violates the law of non-contradiction and the law of the excluded middle. If we are to take religious pluralism seriously we find out that it requires that we simultaneously embrace contradictory propositions. Let’s go back to monotheism vs polytheism. Monotheism says there is one and only one God. Polytheism says there are many gods. If monotheism is true then polytheism is false. If polytheism is true then monotheism is false. The two different basic religious premises cannot be true and there is no third possibility. So, we are forced to make a choice between the two. And logic and reason tell us that the truth must be found in the premise that corresponds to reality.
VK: What you’re saying is that Logic tells us that there must be a real set of facts somewhere – even if we don’t know them – that answers our most basic questions of whether or not a “god” exists, and, if so, which god. That’s one of the two basic points that is essential to good Christian apologetics. At this point we’ve learned enough to be absolutely certain of at least one thing: a religion that does not correspond to the facts is a false religion – because truth corresponds to reality in religion as well as everything else. And that brings us to the step number two in the process of proving not only the existence of God, but of the truth that there is One and Only One God and that God is the God of the Bible.
RD: Right. In our process of proving those two main points we’ve now finished the process of demonstrating that truth is absolute and it is knowable. And we’ve shown that the laws of logic enable us to not only know that truth is absolute and knowable but also that they enable us to move forward in evaluating the various claims made by competing religious systems. Now in encounters with atheists, skeptics, relativists, family members, co-workers, people who knock on your door, or people who may be sitting beside you in the pew, this brief discussion of absolute truth may be all you need to convince someone that they are on the wrong track and need to get over to the truth side. But if a person cannot accept that truth is “telling it like it really is,” we’re going to have a tough time leading them to believe the Absolute Truth of Jesus Christ.
VK: But that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t try to help them. For some people just realizing that some of the current myths and popular belief systems lead to irreconcilable contradictions may be enough to put them on the road to truth. But for others we may have to provide more help in the same way it’s important to distinguish between real and counterfeit money. A twenty dollar bill and a counterfeit twenty dollar bill have many things in common, and, in fact, appear to have more similarities than differences: they are the same shape, color, and design, and they have the same words and pictures. But one is real and the other is not. How do we tell which is the counterfeit and which is real? The answer is by close examination and study in order to thoroughly know the real one. The same principle applies to our study of Christianity. Logic tells us that there must be a real set of facts somewhere – even if we don’t know them – that answers our most basic questions of whether or not a “god” exists, and, if so, which god.
RD: So, here’s where we are in our overall process of proving that there is a God and that that God is the God of the Bible. The claim that God exists is itself a truth claim. Well, we’ve shown that truth is absolute and knowable though we have to tackle the particular truth claim that God exists. But at least we know that absolute truth exists. And we’ve seen that the philosophies that disagree with the existence of absolute truth are all self-refuting. They all fail the test that is established by their central premise.
VK: For instance, if a skeptic says we must doubt everything we may ask the skeptic whether we’re allowed to doubt their demand that we doubt everything. If a relativist says all truth is relative we ask the relativist whether their claim about all truth being relative is an absolute or relative truth.
RD: Yes. And today we’ve seen that there are basic, self-evident, and irrefutable laws of logic which affirm that truth is knowable and absolute – and also affirm the self-defeating nature of the objections to the existence of absolute truth. These laws of logic, which are sometimes termed “first principles” cannot be refuted because their truth must be assumed in any attempted refutation. For instance anyone who contends that the law of non-contradiction doesn’t apply is contending there is an opposite principle that does apply. But they certainly don’t mean that their contention and the opposite are both equally applicable.
VK: Now we know that all of this can produce some head scratching and even some headaches. But once Christians master these principles it produces a Christian who can encounter the barrage of criticism aimed today at the Christian faith and emerge unscathed. And as important as that is for adults it’s even more important for our kids and grandkids. Apologetics, as an area of study, isn’t first and foremost a way to win arguments. It’s a way to protect immature believers as well as hopefully rescue some others from the fire. Well, sounds like a great time to pray. Today let’s listen to a prayer for restoration of the worship of the one true God to our communities and nation since it is only through that restoration that our unsaved friends and neighbors have the hope for salvation.
---- PRAYER FOR ILLUMINATION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT
VK: We’d like to remind our audience that a lot of our radio episodes are linked together in series of topics so if they missed any episodes or if they just want to hear one again, all of these episodes are available on your favorite podcast app. To find them just search on “Anchored by Truth by Crystal Sea Books.”
If you’d like to hear more, try out crystalseabooks.com where “We’re not famous but our Boss is!”
(Bible Quote from the English Standard Version)
Isaiah, Chapter 1, verse 18, English Standard Version