12 Steps to Christian Theism: Steps 1&2, Part 2

In Norman Geisler and Frank Turek's book I Don't Have Enough Faith to be An Atheist, they lay out a 12 step argument that will lead from the reality of truth to the reliability of the Bible and Godhood of Jesus. Using their framework, I intend to have a series of posts about each of the 12 steps. However, I would like to take a deeper look at many of the issues they cover. This is not to say that the coverage in the book is lacking; it's just to say that my own studies have taken me deeper than, I presume, space allowed in the book. The first two posts in the series will cover the first 2 steps, which are:
1. Truth about reality is knowable.
2. The opposite of true is false.

In part 1 of steps 1&2 we talked about the 3 major theories of truth. They are: correspondence, coherence, and pragmatism. The correspondence theory is the only theory of truth that is actually connected to reality and reflects actual objects or events in the world. In this part we are going to discuss the major obstructions to thinking that propositions don't have to correspond to reality. These are postmodernism and relativism. Essentially what is being said is that there is no such thing as objective truth that corresponds to reality. Things can be true for one individual but not for another individual in different circumstances. Let's dig in.

Postmodernism could come in many different forms depending on the individual postmodernist you happen to be conversing with. However, there are 3 main tenets of this theory that inform the postmodernist's worldview. They are: the deconstruction of texts, the assertion that reality is a social construction built on language, and that there are no metanarratives. These all boil down to a rejection of the correspondence theory of truth and thus truth is what the individual or a society makes it.

The postmodernist rejects "authorial meaning in texts along with the existence of stable verbal meanings and universally valid linguistic definitions" (1). What this means in practice is that everyone interprets a text. There isn't one meaning for a given text. With regard to Christianity, this means, for instance, that the resurrection of Christ could be whatever the reader wants it to be; bodily, spiritual, vision, hallucination, conspiracy, etc. They get to this idea by declaring that language is merely a social construct among a linguistic group. A linguistic group could be defined in a number of different ways. A family could be one, a neighborhood, or a small town. Rarely, larger groups such as country regions or nations could be linguistic groups. Groups that get to large could pose problems for the postmodernist language theory due to the fact that if several hundred million people (the US for example) share a language construct this deflates the idea that texts cannot communicate even semi-universal truth. Furthermore, postmodernists assert that all reality is determined by language as shared by linguistic groups. What this amounts to is that Americans and Chinese nationals cannot communicate with each other, even if one or the other group can speak Chinese or English respectively. In fact, they tend to take this even further by saying that someone from Boone cannot converse, whether in speech or in text, with someone from Greensboro because they do not share a language construct. I think you can see how ridiculous this theory is, but I will save the critique for a little later. Finally, a metanarrative is simply, a worldview. Postmodernists hold that there are no metanarratives and thus no way to decide if a worldview is true. In practice this means that if Buddhism, Atheism, or Christianity works for someone, then it is subjectively true for that person or group of persons and no one else.

There are many problems with these views of postmodernity. First of all, there is only one meaning to a text; that of the author's. Paul had a certain idea or argument in mind when he wrote each of his epistles. We should be trying to get to that meaning by placing the text in its appropriate historical and cultural context and being careful to understand the words as they were used in Paul's time. In reality, postmodernists are not postmodernists in everyday life. When they read a label on a poison, they do not claim that the text is whatever they interpret it to be. They rightly do not ingest the poison because the label asserts a universal truth. Namely, humans who eat the poison will die. The postmodernist would deny this in theory, but not in practice. Another problem with postmodernism's thoughts on language is that no one would be able to communicate with one another. If we keep splicing out what people share with each other in terms of life experience, we would discover that even very similar people have not shared every life experience and thus, cannot communicate with each other because their language, while the same words, doesn't mean the same thing. You could imagine two kids who are born in the same town, in the same year. They go to the same grade schools, graduate the same year and sign up for the Marines. They attend boot camp together in the same platoon and graduate the same day. They go to infantry school together and their first active battalion together. They go to Afghanistan together and Iraq twice together in the same company. They both separate from the Marines on the same day. They attend college together in the same degree program, graduate the same day and both get jobs with the same company. And we could go on. On postmodernist theory, these two people could not communicate with each other due to the difference in life experience: i.e. the two people viewed the same things differently. This is clearly absurd and self-defeating. Furthermore, how can the postmodernist think that they can write effectively about their theories of postmodernism? No one can understand the words in their articles because they are interpreting the writing within their own language construct. A similar notion to some aspects of postmodernism is relativism, which some postmodernists adopt as well.

Relativism is a type of subjectivism. Subjectivism means that everything is just a matter of opinion, such as, "I like ice cream." Relativism mainly applies that to morality and ethics. There are 3 kinds of relativism (2). They are: society does relativism, society says relativism, and I say relativism. Society does relativism could also be called cultural relativism. This is a purely descriptive relativism that simply describes, without judgment, what another society does concerning morality. For instance, in India they do not eat cows because they are considered sacred. The inference that is supposed to be drawn is that Americans and Indians have different morals. This is false though. In America, we bury grandma when she dies; in India, the cow might be grandma. Thus, the moral is not to eat (kill) grandma and is the same between countries. Society says relativism dictates that an individual should act in accordance with his own society's code. There are 3 problems with this view. There would be no immoral societies, no immoral laws, and no moral reformation. If a society can just dictate what is right and wrong, then no society could be immoral or make immoral laws. If a society doesn't make immoral laws, a moral reformer, who is trying to change his societies' laws is just a troublemaker. We can put this in a syllogism to see it more clearly.

1. If no society is immoral, then no societies' laws are immoral.
2. If no societies' laws are immoral, then no one should try to change the laws.
3. Relativists believe what society says is moral.
4. Martin Luther King, Jr. tried to change the laws of American society.
5. Therefore, in relativist America, Martin Luther King, Jr. was wrong to try to change the laws of American society.

This is obviously false. Dr. King was right in his championing of equal rights for African-Americans. But, on a relativistic society says view, Dr. King should have just shut-up and sat down. The final view is called I say relativism. This view says only individual preferences are guidelines to behavior. This view fails because nothing could ever be right or wrong. If I determine what is right, no one could say I was wrong or vice-versa. We would have people running all over the place doing whatever made them feel good. In summary, relativism has 7 fatal flaws (3):

Relativists can't...
1. accuse others of wrongdoing
2. complain about the problem of evil
3. place blame or accept praise
4. make charges of unfairness or injustice
5. improve their morality
6. hold meaningful moral discussions
7. promote the obligation of tolerance

Relativism presents a view of reality in which there is no objective moral standard (God) and seeks to reject the fact that true is the opposite of false by declaring that everyone's position is true.

In conclusion for steps 1&2, we can assess whether something is true or not. The correspondence theory of truth shows us how to do that. We check to see if what we think or say corresponds to reality. If it doesn't, then it isn't true. If we can determine what is true, then we know what is false because they are opposites. In the next several posts we are going to look at step 3: It is true that the theistic God exists. A number of arguments will be offered to reasonably demonstrate this fact.

Notes:
1. J. P. Moreland and William Lane Craig. Philosophical Foundations For A Christian Worldview. pg. 145.
2. Francis J. Beckwith and Gregory Koukl. Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted In Mid-Air. pgs. 36-9.
3. ibid, pgs. 61-9.

12 Steps to Christian Theism: Steps 1&2, Part 1

Reading time: 10 minutes

In Norman Geisler and Frank Turek's book I Don't Have Enough Faith to be An Atheist, they lay out a 12 step argument that will lead from the reality of truth to the reliability of the Bible and Godhood of Jesus. Using their framework, I intend to have a series of posts about each of the 12 steps. However, I would like to take a deeper look at many of the issues they cover. This is not to say that the coverage in the book is lacking; it's just to say that my own studies have taken me deeper than, I presume, space allowed in the book. The first post in the series will cover the first 2 steps, which are:
1. Truth about reality is knowable.
2. The opposite of true is false.

These steps are obviously related. Geisler and Turek offer the correspondence theory of truth as the reason they know step 1. Step 2 follows from step 1. What I would like to do is to discuss the correspondence theory of truth as well as 2 alternate theories of truth. I hope to demonstrate that we should all accept the correspondence theory and reject the other two theories. From there, in part 2, I am going to discuss the 2 biggest hurdles for the correspondence theory: postmodernism and relativism, which are interrelated.

The correspondence theory of truth can be defined as such: "a proposition (statement, belief) is true just in case it corresponds to reality, when what it asserts to be the case is the case" (1). In practical terms, this means that if I say, "The oven is on at my house", that is only true if it corresponds to reality. In this case it would be true if the oven is actually on at my house. The key here is not that I believe the oven to be on or I assert the oven to be on, it is only true if the oven is actually on. In terms of the steps above, step 1 would be verified by someone going to my house and checking to see if the oven is on. Whether the oven is on or off, we just discovered a truth about reality. Step 2 comes in when we consider my statement about the oven. If the oven actually is on, what I said is true. If the oven is off, what I said is false, the opposite of true. The actual instance of external reality is what makes a proposition true or false. More technically, the correspondence theory of truth could be defined when "truth obtains when a truth-bearer stands in an appropriate correspondence relation to a truth-maker" (2). There are 3 parts to this definition that need to be siphoned out: truth-bearer, correspondence relation, and truth-maker. Let's take a look.

Three types of truth-bearers have been offered by correspondence theorists: sentences and statements, thoughts and beliefs, and propositions (3). Sentences and statements are problematic because of the existence of meaningless sentences and/or statements such as "Hey!". That statement is neither true nor false. Proponents of this view may say that it is the content or what is being asserted that is true or false, but that comes very near propositions. Thoughts and beliefs as truth-bearers are also problematic for the same reason that sentences/statements are. It is not the thought/belief itself that bears the truth or falsehood about reality, it is the content, which, once again, leads us to propositions as the appropriate truth-bearers.

Truth-makers deal with what makes something true. So, what makes something true? Propositions are "true just in case a specific state of affairs... actually obtains" (4). This means that the content of declarative sentences/statements or thoughts/beliefs corresponds to reality through intentionality. Propositions are directed at an object which can then be examined to see whether or not the content obtains. Is the oven on or not at my house? If it is, the content of my earlier proposition, which was directed at the oven at my house, obtains and is true.

The final part of correspondence theory is the correspondence relation which is "a two-placed relation between a proposition and the state of affairs that is its intentional object" (5). When we consider my oven again, we can see that the proposition, "The oven is on at my house", is either true or false based on the state of affairs at my house (i.e. the oven is on or off). The oven is the intentional object. I did not intend the porch light in my proposition, but the oven. In summary, the correspondence theory of truth proclaims that something is true if the relation between the truth-bearer (proposition) obtains according to the truth-maker (intentionality or directedness at an object). If not, it is false, which is the opposite of true. When we consider the logical law of non-contradiction we see that step 2 is correct. "The oven is on at my house" cannot be true and false in the same sense at the same time. Also, the logical law of excluded middle says that propositions are either true or false, there is no other option. The oven can't be anything but on or off.

The other 2 theories of truth will be covered more briefly. The first of these is the coherence theory. This theory proposes that "a belief (statement, proposition, etc.) is true if and only if it coheres well with the entire set of one's beliefs, assuming that the set is itself a strongly coherent one" (6). The major problem with this theory is that the truth of a belief doesn't have to have anything to do with reality. As long as it "coheres" with other beliefs it is true. This is problematic. If "Bob" tells me his name is "John", according to this theory, it is true even though it is actually false. His having the name John coheres with all my other beliefs and therefore, is true. In fact, this is what most skeptics accuse Christians of doing. We believe that Jesus rose from the dead, it coheres with our other beliefs (by ignoring things that disprove it), so it's true. No reality check needed. I don't know about you, but that is not what I think about Jesus' resurrection. I think it corresponds to reality and we can check it in history to see if it's true. The final theory of truth is called pragmatism or the pragmatic theory of truth. This theory says "a belief P is true if and only if P works or is useful to have" (7). Again, there is no relation to external reality and, in general, pragmatists tend to be anti-realists concerning the external world (they don't think it's real). Another issue with pragmatism is that anybody gets to define what works or is useful to have. An example would be Muslim terrorists. They think killing infidels works or is a useful belief to have because it gets them to heaven and in the good graces of Allah. This means that the belief is true whether or not external reality demonstrates it to be true or not. There is good reason to think Islam is false and thus the belief that killing infidels gets you to heaven is false, but according to the pragmatic theory of truth this belief would be true.

The correspondence theory of truth is what you use in every day life. It is the common-sense view of truth about reality. The oven isn't on at my house right now, therefore, my earlier statement is false. It doesn't matter if the oven being on coheres with my other beliefs or if it works for me; the external reality is that the oven is off so my proposition is false. Our courts use this theory as well when examining evidence at a trial. If you are a Christian, the Bible seems to ascribe to this theory as well (Isa 45:19; Pro 8:7; Jer 9:5; John 8:44-5; 17:17; 10:35). It just seems to make sense that when we say or think something, we can then check that in the world and see if it is true or false.

In part 2 of steps 1&2 we'll talk about the 2 biggest challenges to the correspondence theory of truth: postmodernism and relativism.

Notes:
1. J. P. Moreland and William Lane Craig, Philosophical Foundations For A Christian Worldview, 2003. pg 135.
2. ibid, pg 135.
3. ibid, pg 135.
4. ibid, pg 136.
5. ibid, pg 139.
6. ibid, pg 142.
7. ibid, pg 144.

Literary Genres in the Bible, Part 2

Video length: 30:41

A. Prophets

            1. Paragraph: God tells Habakkuk that He is about to do a wondrous work

            2. Oracle: Habakkuk complains about Israel’s treatment, God answers

            3. Book: Israel rejects God, He punishes them but promises them hope in the end

4. Sinaitic covenant (the Law): God’s chastisement of Israel through the prophets is all related to the Law and Israel’s inability/unwillingness to obey God’s commands

5. Bible: God must constantly call Israel to repentance for their disobedience which He does through His prophets. This sets up the significance of Jesus’ sacrifice by showing that nothing we could ever do would merit God’s forgiveness. Even the people with the Law from Heaven could not do it!!! How can we ever expect to?

            6. Near and distant future mixed in a confusing manner (telescoping)

            7. Reference helps: use outside help abundantly, biblehub.com

B. Psalms

            1. What kind of Psalm is it?

                        a. Laments

                                    i. individual: 3, 22, 31, 39, 42, 57, 71, 88, 120, 139, 142

                                    ii. Corporate: 12, 44, 80, 94, 137

                        b. Thanksgiving

                                    i. individual: 18, 30, 32, 34, 40, 66, 92, 116, 118, 138

                                    ii. Corporate: 65, 67, 75, 107, 124, 136

                        c. Hymns of Praise: 8, 19, 33, 66, 100, 103, 111, 113, 114, 117, 145-149

                        d. Salvation-History: 78, 105, 106, 135, 136

                        e. Celebration and Affirmation: 2, 18, 20, 21, 24, 29, 45-48, 50, 72, 76, 81,                                    84, 87, 89, 93, 95-99, 101, 110, 122, 132, 144

                        f. Wisdom: 36, 37, 49, 73, 112, 127, 128, 133

                        g. Songs of Trust: 11, 16, 23, 27, 62, 63, 91, 121, 125, 131

2. Reference helps: Out of the Depths: The Psalms Speak for Us Today, Steven Bishop; How to Read the Psalms, Tremper Longman III; biblehub.com commentary section

C. Wisdom

            1. Proverbs: practical attitudes and behaviors in everyday life

            2. Job: speculative wisdom about suffering and evil in the world; points to                                     Christ's destruction of evil in the end

            3. Ecclesiastes: speculative wisdom about the nature of earthly pleasure; points                           to Christ's crucifixion that gives us eternal life

            4. Song of Solomon (Song of Songs): marital romance and appropriate sexual                               desire, not sexual lust and pleasure

            5. Reference helps: biblehub.com commentary section

D. Law (12 rules from Fee and Stuart, pg. 186)

            1. Do see the OT law as God's fully inspired word for you.

            2. Don't see the OT law as God's direct command to you.

            3. Do see the OT law as the basis for the old covenant, and therefore for Israel's                          history.

            4. Don't see the OT law as binding on Christians in the new covenant except                                 where specifically renewed.

            5. Do see God's justice, love, and high standards revealed in the OT law.

            6. Don't forget to see that God's mercy is made equal to the severity of the                                  standards.

            7. Do see the OT law as a paradigm-providing examples for the full range of                                expected behavior.

            8. Don't see the OT law as complete. It is not technically comprehensive.

            9. Do remember that the essence of the law (the Ten Commandments and the                             two chief laws) is repeated in the Prophets and renewed in the NT.

            10. Don't expect the OT law to be cited frequently by the Prophets or the NT.                               Legal citation was first introduced only in the Roman era, long after the OT was                                    complete.

            11. Do see the OT law as a generous gift to Israel, bringing much blessing when                           obeyed.

12. Don't see the OT law as a grouping of arbitrary, annoying regulations limiting                                    people's freedom.

Literary Genres in the Bible, Part 1

Video length: 17:24

Considerations for different literary genres in the Bible (How to Read the Bible for All its Worth, Gordon D. Fee and Douglas Stuart)

A. Gospels

1. Paragraph: Zechariah speaks with Gabriel about his coming son

2. Story: the births of John the Baptist and Christ foretold and happened 

3. Book: Luke’s gospel which was to give “an orderly account” of Christ’s birth, death and resurrection 

4. Gospel genre: the gentile gospel in which Christ is portrayed mainly as the Son of Man with God’s authority

5. Bible: Christ’s birth was the beginning of the fulfillment of the Old covenant and the beginning of the New covenant

6. Reference helps: The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament, Craig S. Keener; biblehub.com commentary section

B. Parables

                        1. Groups of parables: the lost sheep, coin and son

                        2. Audience: the Pharisees

                        3. Points of Reference: talents and denarii

                        4. Parables are not analogies

5. Reference helps: The Presence of the Future, George E. Ladd; Rediscovering the Parables, Joachim Jeremias; see above Gospels #6

C. Epistles

                        1. Paragraph: Paul says we are justified by faith not works of the law

                        2. Book: This is the overarching theme of Romans

                        3. Author: Paul affirms himself in other epistles

                        4. Specific context: Judaizers were harassing the Roman church that Paul planted

5. New Testament: This is confirmed by the finished work of Christ written about in the Gospels, Acts, and the other epistles

                        6. Reference helps: see above Gospels #6

            D. Narrative

                        1. Paragraph: Joseph sees that God used evil for His good purpose

                        2. Story: Joseph sold into slavery by his brothers

                        3. Book: The beginnings of God’s chosen people

                        4. Testament: The story of God’s chosen people

                        5. Bible: Israel is a type of the church and bears many important lessons for us

2. Reference help: biblehub.com commentary section