Many of you probably understand how exciting this is to me since I like to strip things down to basic logic. It makes sense, it's reasonable, and therefore must be the best viable option. So to begin heavy topics like the ones we will encounter in Doctrine III (dispensational and premillenial views concerning the doctrine of the church) with logic, I'm intrigued.
But the reason for this blog is not to share in the excitement of the approach my professor is taking at discussing these topics. No, the reason I am blogging is because I want to unpack, think through, and discuss with you a profound point he was coming to in his lecture.
We cannot 'know' anything as it refers to absolute certainty. We can only 'know' as it refers to higher probability.
Now many would see that statement and dismiss it right away saying "Of course there are absolute certainties. For example I am absolutely certain that if I jump as high as I can, I will also land back upon the ground due to gravity." But even in physics and science, anomalies occur.
You can never be absolutely certain that an anomaly will not happen at that very instant. All you can really say is, "Based upon my presuppositions of how gravity works there is an extremely high probability that I will land back on the ground." Due to unforeseen anomalies possibly occurring in any given situation, it is impossible to be absolutely certain of anything.
I know for Christians, scientists, and anyone else who claim and believe that absolutes exist may disagree with the previous paragraph at first glance. But I am not..let me repeat...I am NOT concluding that there are no absolutes.
I am not supporting the post modern thought that there are no absolutes and therefore everything is relative. That is a bunch of hogwash, and is the most illogical thing I have ever heard.
Logic tells me that absolutes must exist because otherwise our world would not be able to function. It also tells me that absolutes cannot contradict each other. For example if a=b and b≠c then a≠c. It would not make any logical sense for a=c under the previously given absolutes. Therefore there must be one overlying umbrella of truth that encompasses all absolutes.
This is where it gets tricky. If we cannot know the absolutes, though they do exist, how and why are we supposed to seek truth in any and everything we do? All we really can do is see the evidences before us, and choose the highest probable option.
It eventually all goes back to a source of truth and standard. We can come to conclusions all we want, but if our presuppositions in our standard of truth is inaccurate your foundation will eventually crumble.
People may find that standard in different places; science, Koran, Bible...the list goes on and on and on. BUT like I said there can only be one all encompassing truth, logic does not leave room for more than one standard of truth in which all absolutes fall under.
We can come to conclusions all we want but we will never know if our presuppositions are absolutely, without a doubt, accurate. Again, all we can do is see the evidences and proof before us and make a decision based upon the highest probable option. This is exactly what Martin Luther did when he stood up against the Catholic Church.
Martin Luther presupposed that Scripture is the source of truth. He constantly went back to Scripture to search for the highest probable absolute, and could only be persuaded otherwise by that very source and standard of truth. Even when he was pressured to recant his beliefs he said:
“Here it is, plain and unvarnished. Unless I am convicted of error by the
testimony of Scripture or by manifest reasoning, I stand convicted by the
Scriptures to which I have appealed, and my conscience is taken captive
by God's word, I cannot and will not recant anything...On this I take my
stand. I can do no other.” -- Diet of Worms 1521
So I guess my question to you is, where do you find your source of truth? Do you construct all of your logic off of that foundation or do you find yourself having to contradict yourself? There is only one source of truth and that truth will never contradict itself. If you contradict yourself either your logic is flawed or your foundation is not the true source of truth.
Test your foundation, see if it holds.
* * *
I hope I have accurately communicated my point without contradicting myself. When talking about logic it is easy to get caught walking in circles, hopefully I did not end up doing that. I tried my best not to.
If you find a flaw in my reasoning please let me know. Also, I am curious to hear any and all thoughts...especially those that disagree with anything I said because you'll be more critical and honest about my presuppositions and logic. :)
Very interesting Janelle. I studies bits of this in seminary. In philosophy, there are different terms used to describe that which is. Metaphysics is the area of physics that is concerned with what is.
On the other hand, there is the area of physics concerned with truth. That's called epistemology. Epistemology asks two questions: What is truth? and How do we know it?
If you believe as I do, and it seems you do, the answer to the first question, is not fully know able, but is somewhere immutable and unchanging. What ever our experience, truth does not change.
The second question is different. How we come to know truth is variable. This is where probability comes in. We can't know truth fully. The ways we come to know truth are dependent upon our experiences. Since our experiences are limited, they are flawed. We can think we know something well, but we can't know the extent that our experience is telling us the truth.
You bring up a good point with this post. Thanks.
This comment has been removed by the author.
My reply is turning into what will be a post of my own, but let me pose a few questions for you to think about:
How do we judge a theory? How do I know if a proposed truth corresponds to the way things really are? Is it even possible to know if a proposed truth corresponds to the way things really are? How do we determine the probability that a theory corresponds to the truth?
What exactly is an all-encompassing theory of truth ("absolute truth standard")? If parts of an all-encompassing theory of truth are contradictory, can't we just revise those parts to eliminate the contradiction?
While it is true that there is only one truth and that truth will never contradict itself, is it also true that an all-encompassing theory of truth which does not contradict itself is true? Is this notion of non-contradiction adequate for analyzing the truth of an all-encompassing theory of truth? How else do we judge an all-encompassing theory of truth? Do we judge it as the sum of it's parts? Does it have parts which can be judged?
Is Science an all-encompassing theory of truth? Isn't science a collection of smaller theories which are each judged on their own merit? Is the scientific method an adequate tool for measuring the probability that a theory is true?
Is the bible an adequate all-encompassing theory of truth? Do you consider the Bible to contain every truth, or only truth? Are there truths about the universe that cannot be found in the bible? Do these or can these contradict with the bible? What if they did contradict with the bible?
Let me finish by saying that I agree that there is an absolute truth and that at least in many cases we can not know the truth with absolute certainty. In science we are taught to evaluate how well a theory corresponds with the evidence and how logically it explains why the evidence is the way it is. If it does that well, then it is considered very probable that the theory is true. If it doesn't explain the evidence very well then the theory is rejected as being probably false. New and changing evidence equals changing theories.
Hopefully I'll get a post up on Facebook and all my many other web presences in the next few days, but between school and work, who really knows...