*Starting on Monday, January 2nd, I will be posting a Bible study of the
book of Acts. It will be posted in increments 5 days per week (Mon
through Fri) for 13 weeks (65 posts). I wanted to announce this early,
so that if you so desire, you can plan accordingly to read and study
along with my lessons. On the 2nd, an index post will go up (as well as
the first lesson) that will allow you to navigate more easily as the
series grows in size.*
Think about it for a minute; what are the first words of Jesus' ministry? Don't look down! Think! What are they? Many of you probably are thinking of Jesus' temptations right now. He quotes from Deuteronomy all three times that he rebukes the devil. That is not the beginning of his ministry though. Figure it out yet? It also is not his words to John the Baptist about "fulfill[ing] all righteousness" when he is baptized. Got it now? Jesus' first words of ministry are the following:
From that time Jesus began to preach, saying, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” (Matt 4:17)
Now after John was arrested, Jesus came into Galilee, proclaiming the gospel of God, and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.” (Mark 1:14-15)
It is striking to me that Jesus' first words in his mission to reconcile the lost to the Father were "repent". Repent literally means to change one's mind. Why did Jesus tell everyone to change their mind? Change their mind about what? Paul answers that in his letter to the Colossians. As he extols the majesty of Jesus Christ and his peacemaking mission by way of the cross, he follows that with this: "And you, who once were alienated and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds," (Col 1:21). That is why Jesus called everyone to change their mind. They (and we!) were in open rebellion to God; alienated from Him, hostile in our thinking about Him, and sinning against Him in our every action. This is the direct result of our sin, which separates us from God with a chasm that we cannot ever hope to bridge under our own power.
The next question we must ask is: "Why?" Why did Jesus come down to earth to die for us if we were all in open rebellion against him (remember, Jesus is God) in both thought and deed? Now this you know: "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life" (John 3:16). Love. Jesus came because he loves us. That in and of itself is incredibly profound. But, we should keep reading. Because if we do, a fantastic insight can be found within the passage that goes with one of the most famous verses of all time. Here is John 3:16-18:
“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God."
I want you to notice that Jesus did not come into the world to condemn it, but to save it. That means, in general, when Jesus is going around telling people about the Kingdom of God, he is not condemning them. He is telling them that he has come to save them if they will believe in him. Now think back to his first words. He told everyone to repent. In effect, he was telling everyone that they were sinful, separated from God, and what to do about it: Repent! Change your mind before it's too late! Jesus, in telling people that they were sinners and needed to repent, was not condemning anyone. Let's look at this in a logical syllogism:
1. If Jesus did not come to condemn the world, then his words and actions did not condemn anyone.
2. Jesus did not come to condemn the world. (John 3:17)
3. Therefore, Jesus' words and actions did not condemn anyone.
Jesus told people about their sinful ways without condemning them. The insight here concerns our efforts to evangelize the lost. Many people are nervous about sharing the gospel because they are aware that they have to give the "bad news" before the "good news". People must understand that they are lost before they can understand that they need to be saved. This means telling them about their sinful ways and calling on them to repent and believe in Christ. Our culture has made it taboo to tell people that what they think is wrong and that you have the truth. This makes evangelism even more daunting because we are conditioned in many ways to think that if we tell someone they are wrong, then that is rude and intolerant. Our Lord Jesus Christ, always the counterculturalist, has another message: "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." In other words, you are wrong, everything is not okay with you, you need to be saved from yourself. This is part of the message you should be delivering to people when you share the gospel. Using Christ as our example and realizing, as I argued above, that Jesus' calling everyone to repentance was not condemnation, it can be seen that our evangelizing efforts that include merely telling people they are sinners and to repent isn't condemnation either. In fact, Jesus came because he loves us. Logic again:
1. If Jesus came because he loved the world, then his words and actions were loving towards the world.
2. Jesus came because he loved the world. (John 3:16)
3. Therefore, Jesus' words and actions were loving towards the world.
And another:
1. Jesus' words and actions did not condemn anyone.
2. Jesus' words and actions were loving towards the world.
3. Therefore, Jesus' words and actions did not condemn anyone and were loving towards the world.
Society is wrong. Telling people to repent because they are sinners is both loving and not condemnatory. This should give us comfort. Even if our society cannot see the truth of Jesus' words, we can trust that God, who knows all the thoughts and intentions of our hearts, is pleased when He sees us delivering the truth to a lost world.
Showing posts with label truth. Show all posts
Showing posts with label truth. Show all posts
Monday, December 12, 2016
Monday, September 12, 2016
A New Brand of Evangelicalism
I read a lot of articles and blogs from a variety of viewpoints online. Atheist, Mormon, Catholic; you name it, I'll read it. I like to see what more than just my own group is thinking and teaching about the truth of the reality around us. This also helps me to be aware of buzzwords that certain communities use so I can recognize (at least sometimes, though not all the time) if a writer or speaker identifies with a particular community who is teaching something antithetical to orthodox Christianity. This allows me to beware, though I still try to give everyone the benefit of the doubt. I thought I would share this article and offer some critique of it. The point of this post isn't to trash these "progressive evangelicals" in a personal way, but to point out that bad thinking about truth, especially with regard to matters of faith, is prevalent and something to be avoided. We should strive to be good critical thinkers. Here a link to the article, though I will quote it:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ryan-phipps/progressive-evangelicals_b_11824426.html
Note: everything from the article is in quotation marks. My own comments are not.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ryan-phipps/progressive-evangelicals_b_11824426.html
Note: everything from the article is in quotation marks. My own comments are not.
"There is a story
in three of the four gospels where Jesus stages a protest in the temple
during Passover. He releases the animals that were being sold for
sacrifice, he overturns the moneychanging tables, and he rebukes the
merchants for taking advantage of the poor. The story ends with Jesus shouting, “Tear down this temple, and I’ll rebuild it in three days!"
It seems disingenuous to call Jesus' actions a protest. That has so many connotations in our minds concerning the 60's and the current Occupy Wall Street and Black Lives Matter movements that to call Jesus' outburst a protest seems to me an attempt at equating him with social justice movements in general. I'll point out that Jesus' mission was of a single purpose, which he addressed right from the get go: "From that time Jesus began to preach, saying, "Repent, for the Kingdom of heaven is at hand." (Matt 4:17) Christ came to call sinners to repentance and to die for that sin on the cross. Even if we could equate Jesus with social justice causes, which in many cases I don't think you can, that was secondary to his mission. What also strikes me as a mis-characterization is the authors' assertion that Jesus releases the animals. Go read it yourself (Matt 21:12-17; Mark 11:15-18; Luke 19:45-47); it doesn't say that. It also says nothing of the poor. The money-changers and animal salesmen could have been taking advantage of any socio-economic group, including, but not limited to, the poor. Finally, the author makes things very confusing when he describes the ending of the story. Jesus' quote about the temple is found in John's gospel (2:13-22), but according to this author, this is not the same story because the cleansing of the temple is found in "three of the four gospels". I don't know what to make of this. It's just confusing.
"In John’s gospel, there is a related passage where Jesus explains that “this temple” he was talking about was his own body. He foretells that he will be killed by the Jewish authorities, then rise from the dead three days later. Meaning, everything that formally took place in the temple would soon be available in Jesus himself.
It seems disingenuous to call Jesus' actions a protest. That has so many connotations in our minds concerning the 60's and the current Occupy Wall Street and Black Lives Matter movements that to call Jesus' outburst a protest seems to me an attempt at equating him with social justice movements in general. I'll point out that Jesus' mission was of a single purpose, which he addressed right from the get go: "From that time Jesus began to preach, saying, "Repent, for the Kingdom of heaven is at hand." (Matt 4:17) Christ came to call sinners to repentance and to die for that sin on the cross. Even if we could equate Jesus with social justice causes, which in many cases I don't think you can, that was secondary to his mission. What also strikes me as a mis-characterization is the authors' assertion that Jesus releases the animals. Go read it yourself (Matt 21:12-17; Mark 11:15-18; Luke 19:45-47); it doesn't say that. It also says nothing of the poor. The money-changers and animal salesmen could have been taking advantage of any socio-economic group, including, but not limited to, the poor. Finally, the author makes things very confusing when he describes the ending of the story. Jesus' quote about the temple is found in John's gospel (2:13-22), but according to this author, this is not the same story because the cleansing of the temple is found in "three of the four gospels". I don't know what to make of this. It's just confusing.
"In John’s gospel, there is a related passage where Jesus explains that “this temple” he was talking about was his own body. He foretells that he will be killed by the Jewish authorities, then rise from the dead three days later. Meaning, everything that formally took place in the temple would soon be available in Jesus himself.
So what happened in the temple? Well, a lot.
- forgiveness of sins through sacrifice
- forgiveness of sins through sacrifice
- healing of the sick
- worship
- prayers
- and most importantly: getting close as one could possibly get to the presence of God."
Again, the author makes things very confusing by saying that the John quote is in "a related passage". It's in the one he quoted from above about tearing down the temple. It's the same story! I don't know what's going on here. I agree with him somewhat about what took place in the temple. The items listed were found in the temple, which would now be found in Jesus. Though, it should be noted that one of Stephen's major points in his speech before the Sanhedrin (Acts 7) is that God was always working outside of both the temple and the land of Israel even if the Jews didn't or refused to recognize it. Another objection is healing of the sick. This happened other places (for instance: 2 Kings 5 where Elisha heals Naaman by telling him to dip in the Jordan river 7 times). Healing didn't formally take place (whatever that even means) in the temple only.
The inner court is called the Holy of Holies in the Bible. I'm not sure why the author is renaming it here. The high priest only had access to it one day of the year, not "certain days". Other than that I don't have a problem with this description.
While it is true that the sacramental aspects of the Jewish religion were not fully open to everyone, it was widely understood in biblical Judaism that God would make a way for the Gentiles to be saved as well. Jews thought that only Jews had to do the temple rites. They would not have expected or required proselytes (converts to Judaism) to do these things. This is a half-truth that the author is asserting.
"What infuriated Jesus, then? Could it have been the walls that were constructed to keep people separated from one another and from God? Is it possible that he was outraged by all of the segregation taking place in the Name of God?"
What infuriated Jesus was the fact that the temple was holy because it was where God's presence dwelt. The answer to the next questions is, "No." I say this because Jesus wasn't concerned with walls at the temple separating people from God. He was worried about our own sin and evil separating us from God. The last question could be answered in the affirmative, but Jesus never said anything about segregation in the temple, so who knows?
"If you are a Christian, questions like these are still as relevant today for the “people of God” as they were back then. How would Jesus feel about the religious practices of Evangelical Christianity today, were he living among us?
Again, the author makes things very confusing by saying that the John quote is in "a related passage". It's in the one he quoted from above about tearing down the temple. It's the same story! I don't know what's going on here. I agree with him somewhat about what took place in the temple. The items listed were found in the temple, which would now be found in Jesus. Though, it should be noted that one of Stephen's major points in his speech before the Sanhedrin (Acts 7) is that God was always working outside of both the temple and the land of Israel even if the Jews didn't or refused to recognize it. Another objection is healing of the sick. This happened other places (for instance: 2 Kings 5 where Elisha heals Naaman by telling him to dip in the Jordan river 7 times). Healing didn't formally take place (whatever that even means) in the temple only.
"The temple was constructed in a series of concentric boxes. At the center
of the temple was a room called the “The Inner Court.” This is where the
presence of God dwelt. It was the most exclusive room in the ancient
Jewish world. Only the high priest had access to this room, and even
then only on certain days of the year. The next court was called “The Court Of The Jews.” Only Jewish males had access to this court. Next, was the “The Court Of Women.” Jewish Women, no matter how well they behaved were separated from God by two giant walls. The outer court, where the Jesus staged his protest was called “The
Court Of Gentiles.” This is as close as non-Jewish people were allowed
to get to the Divine Presence, whether male or female."
The inner court is called the Holy of Holies in the Bible. I'm not sure why the author is renaming it here. The high priest only had access to it one day of the year, not "certain days". Other than that I don't have a problem with this description.
"Humankind’s
closeness to God in this culture was limited by one’s ethnicity, gender,
and religious pedigree. The Gentiles were kept at a distance. They were
the original group of people who “were welcome to attend,” but not
“welcome to participate fully” in the sacramental aspects of the Jewish
religion."
While it is true that the sacramental aspects of the Jewish religion were not fully open to everyone, it was widely understood in biblical Judaism that God would make a way for the Gentiles to be saved as well. Jews thought that only Jews had to do the temple rites. They would not have expected or required proselytes (converts to Judaism) to do these things. This is a half-truth that the author is asserting.
"What infuriated Jesus, then? Could it have been the walls that were constructed to keep people separated from one another and from God? Is it possible that he was outraged by all of the segregation taking place in the Name of God?"
What infuriated Jesus was the fact that the temple was holy because it was where God's presence dwelt. The answer to the next questions is, "No." I say this because Jesus wasn't concerned with walls at the temple separating people from God. He was worried about our own sin and evil separating us from God. The last question could be answered in the affirmative, but Jesus never said anything about segregation in the temple, so who knows?
"If you are a Christian, questions like these are still as relevant today for the “people of God” as they were back then. How would Jesus feel about the religious practices of Evangelical Christianity today, were he living among us?
- a church system that STILL qualifies people based on socio-economic status, race, political parties, and gender.
- a system that
welcomes those who identify as LGBTQ until they decide that they want
to baptized, take communion, or serve in a greater capacity
- a system that suppresses the ordination of women and their God given gifts to serve in Christian leadership
- a system that elevates the pulpit to the stature of The Inner Court."
I'll answer each bullet in turn.
-Does the church do this? Socio-economic status and political parties are not taken into account in any church I've ever been in. Race is tricky. Churches in America are self-segregated. Blacks tend to go to church with blacks while whites go with whites. I don't know why this happens, but it isn't because "white churches" have signs that say "blacks not welcome" or vice-versa. It's just a happenstance of the society we live in. Gender is assigned by God, we can't pick our own gender. Feelings don't determine gender. If he is talking about women as pastors, I'll address that below.
-I think there is a typo in the second bullet. I think it should say "a system that DOESN'T welcome"... We should welcome those who identify as LGBTQ, while also speaking the truth in love by telling them that their lifestyle is sinful and it is their own actions that separate them from God. And now, before someone says "Hey, everyone in church is a sinner, even Christians!" (whoops, too late!). Yes, everyone is a sinner, but not everyone is living in open rebellion to God without repenting. That is the issue. Read 1 John 1:5-10. Both those who proclaim to be Christian, yet "walk in darkness", and those who say they never sin are not of God. If they are not of God, they shouldn't be baptized, take communion, or serve in a greater capacity.
-If you ascribe to Christian complementarianism, you think that women and men have complementary roles given straight from God. In this structure, the man is head of the wife, the leader of both the household and the leadership of the Church. Is this suppression of the ordination of women? If you want to say it that way, yes, it is. But, it's straight from the Bible and therefore, from God. He has to make an argument as to why the historic reading and understanding of the Bible is not correct.
-No church I've ever been in has asserted that the pastorate is the only place where God is at and that everyone must hang on every word or teaching that comes from that leadership. This is just an absurd accusation.
I'll answer each bullet in turn.
-Does the church do this? Socio-economic status and political parties are not taken into account in any church I've ever been in. Race is tricky. Churches in America are self-segregated. Blacks tend to go to church with blacks while whites go with whites. I don't know why this happens, but it isn't because "white churches" have signs that say "blacks not welcome" or vice-versa. It's just a happenstance of the society we live in. Gender is assigned by God, we can't pick our own gender. Feelings don't determine gender. If he is talking about women as pastors, I'll address that below.
-I think there is a typo in the second bullet. I think it should say "a system that DOESN'T welcome"... We should welcome those who identify as LGBTQ, while also speaking the truth in love by telling them that their lifestyle is sinful and it is their own actions that separate them from God. And now, before someone says "Hey, everyone in church is a sinner, even Christians!" (whoops, too late!). Yes, everyone is a sinner, but not everyone is living in open rebellion to God without repenting. That is the issue. Read 1 John 1:5-10. Both those who proclaim to be Christian, yet "walk in darkness", and those who say they never sin are not of God. If they are not of God, they shouldn't be baptized, take communion, or serve in a greater capacity.
-If you ascribe to Christian complementarianism, you think that women and men have complementary roles given straight from God. In this structure, the man is head of the wife, the leader of both the household and the leadership of the Church. Is this suppression of the ordination of women? If you want to say it that way, yes, it is. But, it's straight from the Bible and therefore, from God. He has to make an argument as to why the historic reading and understanding of the Bible is not correct.
-No church I've ever been in has asserted that the pastorate is the only place where God is at and that everyone must hang on every word or teaching that comes from that leadership. This is just an absurd accusation.
"We are proud to
call ourselves Progressive Evangelicals because we do not support this
kind of system... and we don’t think that God does either. Were Jesus in
some of our churches today, he’d likely be turning over communion
tables, dashing offering plates into pieces, baptizing the marginalized,
and performing ordination ceremonies for women."
It is ironic to me that they don't want the church qualifying people by political party, but then they clearly identify themselves with a political party. Progressives are squarely in the Democratic party. The "system" they don't support is a cariacture of what Evangelical Christianity actually is. I don't know if Jesus would break stuff in churches. He probably would be upset with some of them though, just as he was with some in the book of Revelation (chs. 2-3). If by marginalized, the author means those living in open sin and rebellion to God, then, no, I disagree 100%. As far as women pastors, I don't think that women can be in leadership positions in the Church based on my reading of scripture, so I don't think Jesus would ordain women. Again, he has to make a case for eagalitarianism rather than complain about "suppression" of women. There are good Christians that make that case. I, and many others, respectfully disagree.
It is ironic to me that they don't want the church qualifying people by political party, but then they clearly identify themselves with a political party. Progressives are squarely in the Democratic party. The "system" they don't support is a cariacture of what Evangelical Christianity actually is. I don't know if Jesus would break stuff in churches. He probably would be upset with some of them though, just as he was with some in the book of Revelation (chs. 2-3). If by marginalized, the author means those living in open sin and rebellion to God, then, no, I disagree 100%. As far as women pastors, I don't think that women can be in leadership positions in the Church based on my reading of scripture, so I don't think Jesus would ordain women. Again, he has to make a case for eagalitarianism rather than complain about "suppression" of women. There are good Christians that make that case. I, and many others, respectfully disagree.
"When we take an honest look at the life of Jesus, we begin to see that tearing down walls is more Christlike than building them. If there is
anything solid we can plant our flag in, it is in the example that Jesus
left behind for us to emulate- making the innermost rooms of God
available to all people. If you are human, you are allowed access."
I agree, we should not build walls to keep people out of churches. However, telling people they are sinners and in need of a savior isn't building a wall, it's the truth. God has made himself available and nothing external the church could do could block the access he has granted. It is the individual who has kept themselves out of "the innermost rooms of God" by not repenting and turning away from sin and towards the only way to the Father, Jesus Christ.
I agree, we should not build walls to keep people out of churches. However, telling people they are sinners and in need of a savior isn't building a wall, it's the truth. God has made himself available and nothing external the church could do could block the access he has granted. It is the individual who has kept themselves out of "the innermost rooms of God" by not repenting and turning away from sin and towards the only way to the Father, Jesus Christ.
"We long to be Christians that are known for this message about Jesus. The word, “evangelical” literally means “good news.” If the message
of our faith doesn’t read like good news to people, perhaps we aren’t
evangelical at all. Indeed, we may be something else. Selah."
Again, sin is the issue. We can't ignore people's sin. Jesus called everyone to repentance at the start of his ministry. The good news of Christ doesn't seem that important when there is no bad news (our sin) accompanying it. That is what this author doesn't understand.
Again, sin is the issue. We can't ignore people's sin. Jesus called everyone to repentance at the start of his ministry. The good news of Christ doesn't seem that important when there is no bad news (our sin) accompanying it. That is what this author doesn't understand.
Tuesday, May 3, 2016
Wednesday Night Apologetics: Lesson 4
This week we cover the moral argument for God's existence. This is the second part of step 3: it is true that the theistic God exists.
Monday, April 25, 2016
Wednesday Night Apologetics: Lesson 3
This lesson is about the beginning of the universe. It covers step 3: it is true that the theistic God exists. You can find a more in depth treatment of the kalam cosmological argument here.
ENJOY!
Saturday, April 16, 2016
Wednesday Night Apologetics: Lesson 2
This lesson is about truth and challenges to our ability to know truth.
Sunday, April 10, 2016
Wednesday Night Apologetics: Lesson 1
Hey everyone! I have had some people express interest in hearing these lessons in some different ways than just on Wednesday night at Trinity Worship Center. Some people work with kids or youth or other places and can't make it; some people are in other classes, but still want to get this information; and still others are in my class and have told me they have trouble taking notes and keeping up with me (for that I apologize). I have decided to record my lectures over the powerpoint presentation that goes with it. That way, you can listen at your leisure and pause it wherever you need to. If you still have questions, please leave a comment or track me down at church. I am always happy to discuss God in the context of apologetics and theology. Below you'll find all the references that I have used in putting this class together. Enjoy!
Reference List for Christianity: True
or False?
I Don’t Have
Enough Faith to be an Atheist by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek
Philosophical
Foundations for a Christian Worldview by J. P. Moreland and William Lane Craig
Chapter 6 Theories of Truth and Postmodernism
Chapter 23 The Existence of God (1)
Chapter 24 The Existence of God (2)
Relativism:
Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air by Francis J. Beckwith and Greg Koukl
Chapter 3 Three Kinds of Relativism
Chapter 4 Culture as Morality
Chapter 5 Culture Defining Morality
Chapter 6 Moral Common Sense
Chapter 7 Relativism’s Seven Fatal
Flaws
Tactics by
Greg Koukl
Reasonable
Faith by William Lane Craig
Chapter 3 The Existence of God (1)
Chapter 4 The Existence of God (2)
Miracles:
The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts by Craig Keener
The Case for
the Resurrection of Jesus by Gary Habermas and Michael Licona
The New
Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? by F. F. Bruce
Systematic
Theology by Wayne Grudem
Chapter 26 The Person of Christ
Friday, January 29, 2016
12 Steps to Christian Theism: Step 3, The Argument from Contingency
So far, we have covered the first 2 steps: truth about reality is knowable and the opposite of true is false in our trek to Christian theism. Knowing that there is such a thing as truth allows us to then evaluate truth claims made by, for instance: a religion, a professor, a scientist, or a philosopher. Either the claims made by individuals such as these are true or they are false. In our process, step 3 states that it is true that the theistic God exists. This consists of making arguments for the existence of a monotheistic God that would fit the bill for Judaism, Christianity, Islam or Deism. The first argument offered was the kalam cosmological argument which argues for a universe with a beginning and thus, a beginner of that universe. In this installment we are going to take a look at the argument from contingency from the famed German, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. Leibniz asked: "Why is there something rather than nothing?" When related to the universe, the syllogism goes like this:
1. Every existing thing has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.
2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
3. The universe is an existing thing.
4. Therefore the explanation of the existence of the universe is God.
This is a philosophical argument that posits the universe is a contingent entity that needs to be continually sustained by a necessary being in order for it to exist. Let's unpack this argument and see where it gets us.
Working backward, we can see that premise 3 is most certainly true. The universe is a thing and this thing does exist. Unless you want to argue that we are in some type of Matrix scenario, which would be unfalsifiable, we can agree that premise 3 is true. Premise 1 is a bit more difficult. I think we can agree on the first part no matter what worldview you currently adhere to. Existing things need explanations. It's the second part that is more tricky. A necessary being exists of its own nature and has no external cause of its existence, while a contingent being is accounted for by causal factors outside itself. Liebniz used his principle of sufficient reason to formulate premise 1. This principle states: "no fact can be real or existent, no statement true, unless there be a sufficient reason why it is so and not otherwise." Many philosophers and cosmologists would posit that the universe is a brute fact without explanation. Many religious folks would posit the same about God. But we want to be better informed and think through this more thoroughly. Liebniz argued that there must be a metaphysically necessary being (a being in which it is impossible for it not to exist) that is the sufficient reason for itself as well as for the existence of every contingent thing. The universe being up for discussion right now, we want to posit that it is contingent, i.e. it relies on something else for its existence. But does it, making the universe contingent?
The universe is contingent and we can see this in a few ways. First of all we have a strong intuition that the universe is contingent and not the metaphysically necessary entity. It is easy to conceive of a universe in which all the fundamental particles of the universe are different or a universe in which there are no concrete objects, only abstract ones. Both of these scenarios seem reasonable. We could also envision universes that have different fundamental laws of nature; something that scientists deal with theoretically all the time. If the universe could have been another way, formulated of different parts or laws or without certain objects that are in the known world, it is contingent. Now that we know the universe is contingent and has an explanation of its existence, what is that explanation? In premise 2 we posit that it is God that is the metaphysically necessary being that sustains everything else. But why? Well, the universe consists of matter, space, time, and energy. So, our metaphysically necessary being cannot consist of those things or, as we have seen, it would be contingent as well. What being do we know of that does not consist of matter, is nonspatial, and atemporal? Either abstract objects or God. Since we learned in the kalam argument that abstract objects do not stand in causal relations to other objects it can't be them, even if they are metaphysically necessary, like some philosophers think about numbers. They simply cannot cause anything. That leaves us with God. I will refer you to the kalam argument post, the conclusion, to discuss the attributes that we can gather from this line of thought for the metaphysically necessary being. Spoiler alert, any religion that posits a deity of any sort that is part of this universe and not transcendent to it is false based on this argument because it would be contingent. This removes from the realm of possibility that it could be: any pagan idol gods, the gods of Hinduism, the god of Mormonism, some sects of Buddhism that have a god, most New Age/Occult worldviews with a god and yes, the flying spaghetti monster. In conclusion, I will leave you with some paraphrased words from William Lane Craig: If you don't want to call the metaphysically necessary being God, you may simply call him the extremely powerful, uncaused, necessarily existing, non-contingent, non-physical, immaterial, eternal being who created the entire universe and everything in it.
Next time we will discuss Thomas Aquinas' cosmological argument which is much more philosophically dense than Leibniz's.
1. Every existing thing has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.
2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
3. The universe is an existing thing.
4. Therefore the explanation of the existence of the universe is God.
This is a philosophical argument that posits the universe is a contingent entity that needs to be continually sustained by a necessary being in order for it to exist. Let's unpack this argument and see where it gets us.
Working backward, we can see that premise 3 is most certainly true. The universe is a thing and this thing does exist. Unless you want to argue that we are in some type of Matrix scenario, which would be unfalsifiable, we can agree that premise 3 is true. Premise 1 is a bit more difficult. I think we can agree on the first part no matter what worldview you currently adhere to. Existing things need explanations. It's the second part that is more tricky. A necessary being exists of its own nature and has no external cause of its existence, while a contingent being is accounted for by causal factors outside itself. Liebniz used his principle of sufficient reason to formulate premise 1. This principle states: "no fact can be real or existent, no statement true, unless there be a sufficient reason why it is so and not otherwise." Many philosophers and cosmologists would posit that the universe is a brute fact without explanation. Many religious folks would posit the same about God. But we want to be better informed and think through this more thoroughly. Liebniz argued that there must be a metaphysically necessary being (a being in which it is impossible for it not to exist) that is the sufficient reason for itself as well as for the existence of every contingent thing. The universe being up for discussion right now, we want to posit that it is contingent, i.e. it relies on something else for its existence. But does it, making the universe contingent?
The universe is contingent and we can see this in a few ways. First of all we have a strong intuition that the universe is contingent and not the metaphysically necessary entity. It is easy to conceive of a universe in which all the fundamental particles of the universe are different or a universe in which there are no concrete objects, only abstract ones. Both of these scenarios seem reasonable. We could also envision universes that have different fundamental laws of nature; something that scientists deal with theoretically all the time. If the universe could have been another way, formulated of different parts or laws or without certain objects that are in the known world, it is contingent. Now that we know the universe is contingent and has an explanation of its existence, what is that explanation? In premise 2 we posit that it is God that is the metaphysically necessary being that sustains everything else. But why? Well, the universe consists of matter, space, time, and energy. So, our metaphysically necessary being cannot consist of those things or, as we have seen, it would be contingent as well. What being do we know of that does not consist of matter, is nonspatial, and atemporal? Either abstract objects or God. Since we learned in the kalam argument that abstract objects do not stand in causal relations to other objects it can't be them, even if they are metaphysically necessary, like some philosophers think about numbers. They simply cannot cause anything. That leaves us with God. I will refer you to the kalam argument post, the conclusion, to discuss the attributes that we can gather from this line of thought for the metaphysically necessary being. Spoiler alert, any religion that posits a deity of any sort that is part of this universe and not transcendent to it is false based on this argument because it would be contingent. This removes from the realm of possibility that it could be: any pagan idol gods, the gods of Hinduism, the god of Mormonism, some sects of Buddhism that have a god, most New Age/Occult worldviews with a god and yes, the flying spaghetti monster. In conclusion, I will leave you with some paraphrased words from William Lane Craig: If you don't want to call the metaphysically necessary being God, you may simply call him the extremely powerful, uncaused, necessarily existing, non-contingent, non-physical, immaterial, eternal being who created the entire universe and everything in it.
Next time we will discuss Thomas Aquinas' cosmological argument which is much more philosophically dense than Leibniz's.
Wednesday, December 30, 2015
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.
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.
Thursday, December 17, 2015
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)