ARCHIVE: Presuppositionalism - What and Why?

[Hilston]

Combined reply to Chileice and Clete:

Chileice,

I don't say "He exists, and now it must be dealt with" to the atheist. I prove to the atheist that a God-less worldview makes no sense. See the link below. I challenge the atheist to make sense of the world on his own presuppositions. Then I show him that it can't be done without the existence of God. See the link below. I usually only get the complaint of circularity from other Christians who don't know what they're talking about. Atheists seem to learn very quickly that they don't get very far with that tack. When an atheist says they trust logic, I demonstrate that it is a blind faith and an epistemological dilemma that can't be resolved on their own presuppositions. See the link below. I don't tell them that they can't trust logic; I demonstrate to them that it is a blind trust and only the existence of God can ground their reliance upon it.

Please have a look at the following link. It will give you an example of what I'm talking about:

The Impossibility of Atheism

Clete writes:
Yes, I know but the word 'gap' is an excellent way of communicating at least part of the problem I'm having with this methodology.

I see. Thanks for clarifying.

Clete writes:
This sounds exactly like "The Bible is true because it says it is true." How am I wrong?

The difference is, after the declaration is made, the proof is provided to back up the declaration. The demonstration is made of how the gainsayer's view doesn't come close to providing a cogent accounting. If you would read the link I gave Chileice above, you wouldn't be asking this question.

Clete writes:
You've explained nothing! All you've done is declare conclusions without explaining how you came to those conclusions.

Clete, are you reading what I've written? I've explained to you how I've come to these conclusions. Do you remember these words? "... flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven." That is how I came to these conclusions. It has been revealed to me. That is how I came to these conclusions. God reveals Himself to those who diligently seek Him. That is how I came to these conclusions. How did I come to these conclusions? God revealed them to me. These conclusions were arrived at how? By the revelation of God. How do I know these things are true? The Creator of heaven and earth revealed them to me through His Word. How is it that these conclusions are known by me? God's Spirit bore witness with my own that these things were so.

Clete writes:
You now seem to be saying that it is unbiblical to make such explanations but that there is no resistance to explanation.

Um ... what? I've been making explanations and not resisting explanations. Please acknowledge that you see the distinctions between "knowing" and "proving" that I made above, because that's where we seem to be getting wrapped around the axle.

Clete writes:
No I haven't been given any such thing. All you've said is that the Bible is true because of the impossibility of the contrary which would be an excellent first line of a well thought out argument but on its own it amounts to your word against the skeptic's.

Then give me the skeptic's counterargument.

Clete writes:
What is your opponent supposed to do, take your word for it?

No, he is supposed to challenge me on it on the basis of his own presuppositions, and see if his view can compete with mine. Have you read the Impossibility of Atheism discussion? If not, please do. Read some of it, at least. Take some of those arguments and come back and tell me why they don't work in your opinion. It's not right for you to keep saying things that just aren't true about my method of argument, especially when I've explained how that's not the case, and have provided links that show my method in action that are nothing at all like the way you're characterizing it.

Jefferson, are you out there? Can you help Clete out? What am I saying that is not clear? What have I said that is confusing? As someone who seems to have spent quite some time studying this, perhaps you can give me some advice on where I've been unclear.

 

[Clete]

Jim,

After reading the first several posts of the thread you linked to above I have a question.

Do I understand you to be saying that it is not the manner in which we debate but the specific issues that are debated that are at issue?

I apologize for not having read from that discussion before now. I had intended to yesterday and got too busy and once we got going this morning I just let it slip my mind. That's not good because it has resulted in a lot of wasted energy and time. :doh: I feel terrible!

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Balder]

Hilston,

I've given the proof. Here it is again: Without the existence of the God of the Bible, no sense whatsoever can be made of the most important aspects of man's existence: science, morality, logic, human dignity, time, space, knowledge, etc., That is, no other worldview can cogently and consistently account for the world as we know it. That's the proof. I challenge anyone to disprove it. I challenge anyone to present a view that even comes close to competing with it...

No other worldview can account for the logical nature of the universe and the intelligibility of human experience…

Rather, all other worldviews have no logical foundation. They only pretend to, and do so by borrowing from the biblical worldview. Ultimately, all other worldviews float in the void…

No, I'm saying the Bible is right, exclusively, and everyone else is wrong, and anything that anyone happens to be right about (2+2=4, for example) is the result of borrowing from the Biblical worldview. Further, I am not only saying that no one can prove otherwise, but that all other worldviews are summarily dismantled by the biblical worldview, without exception, based on the claims of the bible and actual experience…

Balder, perhaps you're not reading what I've written. I've substantiated my claims. You may not agree…

I’ve culled these comments from several posts, to see if these statements are what you are referring to when you say you’ve provided “proof” for your claims and that you’ve substantiated your statements. If so, then you have a funny way of using the word “proof,” since I would call the above statements “claims.” Are claims their own proof? You may be able to demonstrate their soundness – that is yet to be shown – but right now, based on the content of this thread, your statements are as much “floating in the void” as the claims of any other religion. Because you haven’t backed them up. There may be opportunity for that, but until that happens, the use of the word “proof” is premature, to say the least.

"Why does God exist?" It's an absurd question. The answer is "I don't know and it doesn't matter that I don't know. He exists, and now we must deal with it." Or "Why can't any other worldview compete with the Biblical worldview?" The answer is because God created reality, and no other claims upon reality can compete with that which has been revealed by its Creator. Or "why is the Biblical worldview superior and true to the exclusion of all others?" The answer is because God is the Creator, and His creation reflects His nature, character and attributes. This alone accounts for the foundational necessities of logic, consciousness, morality, human dignity, etc. All other attempts by Godless worldviews to do so are shown to be fraught with question-begging and logical fallacies.

At this point, without having provided any reason for me to accept that the Bible is the absolute source and test of all knowledge, I don’t see how the above is anything but viciously circular reasoning. For instance, how is it different from a Shaivite Hindu saying, “Christianity can’t compete with our worldview, because Shiva creates and destroys everything, and no other claims upon reality can compete with that”? Or, “The Shaivite worldview is superior to all others because reality obviously reflects all of the divine attributes of Shiva, and without Shiva, who knows the world in and through all things, there wouldn’t even be the possibility for us to be aware of anything or to be asking these questions”?

In an earlier letter, I asked the following:

Balder wrote:
First off, when you say that "only a Biblical worldview" can support and ground these things, can you unpack that a little? What aspects of the Biblical worldview? Specifically, what aspects of the Biblical worldview do this that cannot be found in other theistic religions?

I’m still interested in an answer to this. I have noticed in a number of discussions that people jump from an argument for the necessity of theism to the claim that therefore Christianity is exclusively true, which is an unfounded logical leap, or at least a premature one. Lee Strobel makes it in most of his books.

To give you something to sink your teeth into, I’m copying and pasting part of one of my earlier posts which contains several passages from a traditional Dzogchen text, with commentary by a Western Buddhist scholar. Dzogchen employs some very specialized terminology within the Vajrayana tradition, not very familiar to Tibetan Buddhists in other schools, and the scholar here is translating them in his own way; other translators will use less technical (but also less precise) terms:

~*~

Before there was any shrouding
By either Samsara or Nirvana
There was self-existent pristine cognitiveness, a primordial purity in
Its facticity, an openness beyond demonstration and verbalization;
Its actuality, a sheer lucency shining from deep within;
And its resonating concern, the very energy of excitatory intelligence,
Abiding as an interiority of ultimate purity.
Facticity, abiding as gestalt, suffered neither displacement nor transformation;
Actuality, sheer lucency, manifested as authentic utterance;
And resonating concern was spirituality, abiding as excitatory intelligence.
Although facticity abided as formal gestalt, there was neither face nor hands;
Although actuality abided as lucency, there was no color;
Although resonating concern abided as excitatory intelligence, there was no oscillation.
In itself a radiant interiority, it was the ultimate ground for the universe to evolve.
It abided as the ground for the fact that, auto-dynamically,
From its formal gestalt the gestalt triad manifested,
From its lucency, spontaneous presence manifested as complete engagement in the scenario
developed by Being, and
From resonating concern, excitatory intelligence manifested as pristine cognitions.
This was the primordial state of affairs.

There are several points to be noted. The emphasis on self-existent pristine cognitiveness, which is synonymous with Experience-as-such, makes it quite clear that the big bang was not the explosion of a lump of matter into some preexisting void, as is often popularly believed contrary to what scientists understand it to be. Experience-as-such is neither matter nor a mind which, in a very special sense, might be claimed to "react on the world by ... collapsing it from a superposition into reality." Rather, it seems that Experience-as-such or self-existent pristine cognitiveness is more like an algorithm for dealing with (calculating) the results of actual experience (observation) and, in addition, a pointer to an autopoietic dynamics, which can be described only in terms of the immediacy of Being's auto-projectivity as a splitting into near copies of itself, which then may rush off in opposite directions, giving birth to the universes of Samsara and Nirvana. Furthermore, the reference to a triadic character of facticity, actuality, and resonating concern, apart from constituting symmetry transformations, may also be conceived as a pointing to a multitude of universes, which continue multiplying. In addition, each such expanding universe contains, as it were, a multitude of individuals as participant observers of that universe that they inhabit, being thereby bound within their own universe of limited dimensions. Each individual is therefore unaware of that larger dimensioned n-state universe, the ground and totality of all possible universes which as a 'superposition of N states is observed as a single state An(q) n( ), not because of a projection into that state alone but because the entire universe divides into n-states...'

In the light of these remarks, Longchen Rabjampa's account gains added significance. It is no mere turn of poetic diction when he describes Being's auto-presencing as (1) concern-like, (2) lucency-like, (3) gestalt-like, (4) pristine cognition-like, (5) nonduality-like, and (6) freedom-like. His use of the tag like (ltar) clearly indicates that none of these modes can ever be considered as actual, preexistent, eternally operative parameters, being but modes of the ground and totality auto-presencing as the n-state universe Being itself. Every reference to and (partial) experience of this auto-presencing is necessarily a limited profile, akin to (like) the totality. As a referring expression (a single state) it can never retain the essentially indeterminate spontaneity of the totality (n-states).

Thus Longchen Rabjampa states:

From this ground (gzhi), the ground-totality presencing (gzhi-snang) occurred as follows:
Its spontaneous presence, radiating from deep within as an interiority,
Was outwardly propelled by motility so that its intrinsic outward-tending glowing (gdangs) manifested.
When the "shell" of this spontaneous presence exploded,
Six modes of presencing and two passageways manifested.
The singular, internally radiating excitatory intelligence
Was propelled by motility, the outward-tending glowing of excitatory intelligence,
So that its inner glow was outwardly thrust.

By its concern-like auto-presencing
The auto-creativity of excitatory intelligence became outward tending glowing.
By its lucency-like auto-presencing, like a rainbow,
All and everything as the coming-into-presence of the continuum that is Being
was suffused by luminosity.
By its gestalt-like auto-presencing, clustered gestalts
With no center and no periphery encompassed the universe.
By its pristine cognition-like auto-presencing
Translucent galactic realm (zhing-khams) emerged.
By its nonduality-like auto-presencing
All and everything shared in its dissipative character, having neither center nor periphery.

Impure -- it appeared as a passageway to Samsara.
The presencing of six lifeforms, like a dream;
The downwardly gravitating radiance, like openness-turned-physical.
And still this coming-into-presence abides as the impetus for going further and
further astray.

Pure -- it appeared as the pristine cognitions passageway:
Nirvana's self-manifestation from the primordially pure ground;
Its upwardly dispersing radiance, like the sky. And still
This coming-into-presence abides as the impetus for exercising freedom.

While the six presencing modes are the exploding ground,
The two passageways are invitations to enter;
The entering is either Samsara or Nirvana.
These are the ways in and through which ground-totality presencing
occurs.

Due to the indeterminate character of Being-qua-Existenz, divergent processes develop, which yet remain pervaded by the intelligence of the universe. The cosmological scale on which this intelligence operates, is reflected in its open creativity (rtsal), its prismatic play (rol-pa), and its manifestations of beauty (rgyan). More specifically, these three facets reflect the working of self-existent pristine cognitiveness. Thus [Longchen Rabjampa states]:

The facticity of this self-existent pristine cognitiveness is not in any way anything; its actuality is radiantly diaphanous; and its resonating concern rises as any engagement. In this continuum, which is the ultimate primordial transparency of inseparable excitatory intelligence and open-dimensionality, all and everything that comes-into-presence, and is interpreted as Samsara and Nirvana, abides as its self-manifesting, auto-presencing, and intrinsic freedom in mere playfulness, beauty, and creativity. Moreover, the shape in which this excitatory intelligence expresses itself, is utterly dissipative as Being's openness and radiance; from this dynamic reach and range, which is nowhere and nothing, due to the creativity of the five colors of Being's spontaneous presence, what is found externally as world and internally as embodied sentience, has become present as a beautiful adornment of the auto-manifesting process, the prismatic play of pristine cognitions, and a ceaseless creativity. Yet in this coming-into-presence there is no reality value; rather it is like the appearance of a dream that has come about as the creativity, adornment, and play of an auto-manifesting process having no objective reality.

This process -- creative, playful, and imbuing everything with beauty -- leaves traces of its activity in and as the images that constitute our experienced world. All of them are pure symbols in that they are but self-presentations of Being-qua-Existenz...

The intelligence of the universe (Being), to which one has become gradually attuned (Being-becoming-Existenz), unfolds as the intelligence of our existentially constituted life-worlds and their projects (Being-qua-Existenz). In this unfoldment, the configurational character of Experience-as-such, itself a transformative flux, becomes evident as a multidimensional texture of perceptual, valuational, conceptual, motivational, and stabilizing operations, each having its own field character and yet operating in intimate interplay with all other operations. The interactions of these operations constitute life-worlds as worlds of meaning in which the experiencer feels "at home"...

~*~

Peace,
Balder

P.S. I wanted to respond to two more things...

Hilston asked: Where does sentience come from, Balder?

Balder writes:
Sentience doesn't come from anywhere. Sentience is.

The word "is" is a transitive verb. It takes a direct object in order to make sense. As it stands, the sentence makes no sense. Sentience is what? Sentience is "in existence"? Sentience is "eternal"? Is there past sentience? Is there future sentience? Can the Buddhist of the Vajrayana school say "sentience was" or "sentience will be"?

If we rephrase the question to ask, "Where does God come from?", what would your answer be?

I'm saying the Bible is right, exclusively, and everyone else is wrong, and anything that anyone happens to be right about (2+2=4, for example) is the result of borrowing from the Biblical worldview.

Your repeated charge that everyone who uses their brains at all is borrowing from the Biblical worldview is either sloppy or hyperbolic apologetics. I have heard Christians declare, "Jesus split time in half!" -- meaning that the modern calendar starts out with him, marking the close of an era and the beginning of a new one. But having a calendar in a particular culture started in your honor (it's been done before, as in the case of Prithivi Narayan Shah) is hardly the same as "splitting time." And your claim is similarly hyperbolic. Good for shock value, perhaps, or to impress people who don't think too much about what you are saying but who share your presuppositions, but it is not going to incline non-Christians to take you seriously. You clarified in a previous post that what you really mean is that logic, wherever it is found, is a reflection of God's nature, but that is not at all the same as asserting that whoever uses logic is borrowing from the Biblical worldview.

 

[Chileice]

Hilston,
Let me borrow some phrases from the article by Joel Garver, which you yourself said was a good one. I also find his presentation relatively easy to follow. Where the two of you divirge is on the idea of "proof". Garver avoids the word proof and opts for the word "strategy" which I think is a much better term. Where I am bogging down, and where it seems everyone else is as well, is on your insistence that your presuppositions are in and of themselves "proof" for the exclusivity of the Christian worldview.

Garver says this:
I believe I'm being faithful to presuppositionalism, despite the overheated rhetoric used sometimes by presuppositionalists. I'm happy to admit that people other than Christians can hold logically consistent beliefs--there are, I suppose, innumerable sets of propositions that might be believed and are internally logically consistent. I would, however, deny that it is possible for an unbeliever to live in God's world in a consistent way in every respect (as is true of all of us ravaged by sin). I just would not want to reduce everything to a matter of logical consistency.

To me THIS makes sense. Other people CAN hold logical beliefs. But I also agree, as I'm sure you do, they will not live it as fully intended by God if they live it in a different way.

Garver also states:
First, it seems to imply that there is some kind of standard "transcendental proof" of the Christian faith in a sense that is, at least, analogous to what St. Thomas Aquinas thought he was doing in the Summa Contra Gentiles. I think that is a mistake. There's no such thing as the trascendental argument. What there are, are transcendental strategies for defending the Faith against unbelief.

Second, if we view these transcendental strategies as a "proof" we run into difficulties. One possible strategy that might be considered a proof is the attempt to show the "impossibility of the contrary" of Christianty, but it would be necessary to do so for every possible contrary. One could attempt to derive contradictions, inconsistencies, or kinds of unintelligibility (logical, practical, or otherwise) from the alternatives to Christianity. If this were successful, I suppose one would have gone a long way towards some kind of objective "proof" of Christian theism by process of elimination.

But that's the problem. Even if every other contender is problematic and even if you could show that to be the case (and imagine the odds of being able to do that!), you are not really left with anything deserving the title of "proof." For the purposes of proof you can't just eliminate the contenders and then assume the coherence of Christianity. You must try to demonstrate it.

This Hilston is where I find your approach flawed. I think that the superiority of the Christian worldview is defendable, and defendable based on our presuppositions, but I do not think it is "provable" in some mathematical/logical type proof unless you accept an assumption as an axiom.

 

[Clete]

Jim,

I had intended to post something this evening but after writing it up, I hated it. I need to do a total rewrite and don't have time to do it this evening so I thought I would at least drop you this short note to let you know that something is in the works and to say that except for my having wasted several posts and most of a days time, the rest of this thread is going nicely. I'm learning a lot and I appreciate your participation.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Hilston]

Balder writes:
I’ve culled these comments from several posts, to see if these statements are what you are referring to when you say you’ve provided “proof” for your claims and that you’ve substantiated your statements. If so, then you have a funny way of using the word “proof,” since I would call the above statements “claims.”

Here is Webster's definition of proof. It aligns with my use of the word. If you disagree with the definition, we'll use yours and I'll modify my statements accordingly.

Proof n 1 a : the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact. b : the process or an instance of establishing the validity of a statement esp[ecially] by derivation from other statements in accordance with accepted or stipulated principles of reasoning.

Balder writes:Are claims their own proof?

What claims are you talking about? Can you deny that you have a blind faith concerning your use of logic?

Balder writes:
You may be able to demonstrate their soundness – that is yet to be shown – but right now, based on the content of this thread, your statements are as much “floating in the void” as the claims of any other religion.

Not at all. Given the existence of the God of the Bible, my statements are sufficiently grounded, solidly based upon objective truth. Yours float in the void, as they have no objective basis.

Balder writes:
Because you haven’t backed them up.

I think I have. If you're not satisfied with the backing I've provided, I invite you to expose the flaw of my reasoning or the insufficiency of my support.

Balder writes:
At this point, without having provided any reason for me to accept that the Bible is the absolute source and test of all knowledge, I don’t see how the above is anything but viciously circular reasoning.

I've provided a reason, but you don't like it. That's not my problem. The reason is cogent. The evidence compelling. If you don't accept the idea of logic and science being objectively grounded, and if you prefer the idea of blindly trusting in concepts you cannot prove, then you've arbitrarily chosen an irrational worldview. I offer you a rational grounding of reality; you prefer irrationality and blind faith commitments.

Balder writes:
For instance, how is it different from a Shaivite Hindu saying, “Christianity can’t compete with our worldview, because Shiva creates and destroys everything, and no other claims upon reality can compete with that”? Or, “The Shaivite worldview is superior to all others because reality obviously reflects all of the divine attributes of Shiva, and without Shiva, who knows the world in and through all things, there wouldn’t even be the possibility for us to be aware of anything or to be asking these questions”?

Is that your view? If so, let's analyze Shiva and the source of revelation about this entity. Is this a view you can defend? Or are you just throwing logs in the road for a lack a response from your own view?

Balder writes:
In an earlier letter, I asked the following:
First off, when you say that "only a Biblical worldview" can support and ground these things, can you unpack that a little? What aspects of the Biblical worldview? Specifically, what aspects of the Biblical worldview do this that cannot be found in other theistic religions?

I’m still interested in an answer to this.

I apologize for missing this. The aspects of the Biblical worldview that supports and grounds the intelligibility of human experience are God's existence, nature and attributes, which are revealed to man in the Bible. These were revealed to man prior to the documentation of these things as well, through the created order, through the Mazzaroth (divine revelation in the constellations), through prophets, through angelic revelation, etc. Apart from the acknowledgement and recognition of God's existence, nature and attributes, the intelligibilty of reality becomes absurd and makes no sense.

Balder writes:
To give you something to sink your teeth into, I’m copying and pasting part of one of my earlier posts which contains several passages from a traditional Dzogchen text, with commentary by a Western Buddhist scholar.

From what was it translated? Who wrote it? And what is the source? How do you ascertain whether or not it is true?

Balder writes:
There are several points to be noted. The emphasis on self-existent pristine cognitiveness, ...

Is the SEPC a personal entity, or more like an energy or cosmological state?

Balder writes:
... Experience-as-such is neither matter nor a mind which, in a very special sense, might be claimed to "react on the world by ... collapsing it from a superposition into reality."

"... neither matter nor a mind" suggests to me an impersonal entity, if it can be called at entity at all. Below you call it an algorithm. What grounds the algorithm, Balder? What makes it regular and predictable, despite the chaos and irregularity perceived by the cognizant scions running around on this planet? Is it universal and invariant, despite the particulars and variations in our experience?

Balder writes:
Rather, it seems ...

Did you say "seems"? You mean you don't know???? What are you defending here? A speculation?

Balder writes:
... that Experience-as-such or self-existent pristine cognitiveness ... the entire universe divides into n-states ...'

This is all very fanciful and impressive, but what about these claims should compel me to believe they are true? What is it about this story that assures you that your ability to comprehend it actuality comports with reality?

Hilston asked:
Where does sentience come from, Balder?

Balder writes:
Sentience doesn't come from anywhere. Sentience is.

Hilston replied:
The word "is" is a transitive verb. It takes a direct object in order to make sense. As it stands, the sentence makes no sense. Sentience is what? Sentience is "in existence"? Sentience is "eternal"? Is there past sentience? Is there future sentience? Can the Buddhist of the Vajrayana school say "sentience was" or "sentience will be"?

Balder writes:
If we rephrase the question to ask, "Where does God come from?", what would your answer be?

My answer is "I don't know." If God is infinite, and that is what the scriptures indicate, then nothing exists outside of Him, and that makes the question absurd.

Hilston wrote:
I'm saying the Bible is right, exclusively, and everyone else is wrong, and anything that anyone happens to be right about (2+2=4, for example) is the result of borrowing from the Biblical worldview.

Balder writes:
Your repeated charge that everyone who uses their brains at all is borrowing from the Biblical worldview is either sloppy or hyperbolic apologetics.

How is it sloppy? How is it hyperbolic? You have to do more than make inane statements, Balder. Demonstrate my sloppiness; expose my exaggeration.

Balder writes:
Good for shock value, perhaps, or to impress people who don't think too much about what you are saying but who share your presuppositions, but it is not going to incline non-Christians to take you seriously.

Actually, my experience is the opposite. Most Christians don't like this form of argumentation. They've been duped by the standard tack of Creation Scientist and so-called Biblical apologists for too long. When the Biblical method of argumentation is presented, all of their training and memorization of evolutionistic theories and hoaxes pale by comparison, and they don't like that. I don't use these claims for shock value or to impress anyone. But because they're biblical. And I've found that non-Christians begin to take me quite seriously once they realize that my claims go well beyond mere shock value.

Balder writes:
You clarified in a previous post that what you really mean is that logic, wherever it is found, is a reflection of God's nature, but that is not at all the same as asserting that whoever uses logic is borrowing from the Biblical worldview.

Sure it is. The use of logic, wherever it is found, only makes sense on the Biblical worldview. Whenever an atheist (or a buddhist) uses logic, he unwittingly affirms the verity of God's word. When the Buddhist balances his checkbook, he is using God's logic and God's arithmetic in order to do so. He doesn't have to acknowledge God in order to do it, but by refusing to acknowledge God, his logic and arithmetic make no sense, and he is left with a blind faith commitment to concepts and principles that seem to float in the void.

 

[Hilston]

Chileice writes:
Where I am bogging down, and where it seems everyone else is as well, is on your insistence that your presuppositions are in and of themselves "proof" for the exclusivity of the Christian worldview.

Then you're not reading very carefully. I don't claim my own presuppositions are proof. I claim that everyday experience is proof. Common use of logic and reason are proof. The intelligibility of human experience is proof. The order and regularity of the universe are proof. None of these things are presuppositions, and few people would deny the existence of everyday experience, the verity of logic and reason, the intelligibility of human experience or the order and regularity of the universe. But none of these things make sense in a God-less universe.

Chileice writes:
To me THIS makes sense. Other people CAN hold logical beliefs. But I also agree, as I'm sure you do, they will not live it as fully intended by God if they live it in a different way.

If you will carefully read what I've written, I nowhere deny that people can hold logical beliefs. My point has always been that people who deny God's existence or the verity of His word cannot do so cogently, that when they are logical, they are not being self-consistent, because they refuse to acknowledge the very foundation of that logic.

Chileice writes:
Garver also states: ... But that's the problem. Even if every other contender is problematic and even if you could show that to be the case (and imagine the odds of being able to do that!), you are not really left with anything deserving the title of "proof." For the purposes of proof you can't just eliminate the contenders and then assume the coherence of Christianity. You must try to demonstrate it.

The flaw in Garver's reasoning is that he has not accounted for the full assurance, unwavering certainty, and indubitable faith that Christ has given the believer. Given that, the believer knows, fully, assuredly, unwaveringly, with unshakable certitude, that every other contender is false. The believer doesn't have to prove this to himself. He knows it is true by faith, by God's Spirit bearing witness with his own. So believers can confidently state, based on the authority of the Bible, that no other worldview can compete with the biblical worldview, and that in fact all other worldviews are reduced to absurdity.

Chileice writes:
This Hilston is where I find your approach flawed. I think that the superiority of the Christian worldview is defendable, and defendable based on our presuppositions, but I do not think it is "provable" in some mathematical/logical type proof unless you accept an assumption as an axiom.

In your mind, Chileice, is the existence of God still in question?

 

[Balder]

Hilston,

I'm just stealing a moment on a public computer at work. A response to your letter will follow this evening.

For now, I have two questions I'd like to ask:

Why is God logical and consistent? Why are these attributes of His nature?

The flaw in Garver's reasoning is that he has not accounted for the full assurance, unwavering certainty, and indubitable faith that Christ has given the believer. Given that, the believer knows, fully, assuredly, unwaveringly, with unshakable certitude, that every other contender is false. The believer doesn't have to prove this to himself. He knows it is true by faith, by God's Spirit bearing witness with his own. So believers can confidently state, based on the authority of the Bible, that no other worldview can compete with the biblical worldview, and that in fact all other worldviews are reduced to absurdity.

How do you know this? How do you know that "what God has revealed to you" is really true, and that it is God who has revealed it to you? Is it by God's revelation that you know what is revealed to you is true? If so, isn't that begging the question?

Peace,
Balder

 

[billwald]

"I've given the proof. Here it is again: Without the existence of the God of the Bible, no sense whatsoever can be made of the most important aspects of man's existence: science, morality, logic, human dignity, time, space, knowledge, etc.,"

NO, First, you fail to differentiate between physics and metaphysics.

Second, without the Bible - especially to those who believe that it is the chronologically first historical writing - there is no logical to assume that the metaphysical questions are of any importance at all.

Third, the physical observations would still be made if there was no metaphysics.

 

[billwald]

In other words, If the Young EarthGenesis conclusions are not correct then the physical observations probably preceded the generation of the metaphysical problems.

 

[Clete]

Jim,

I think I've gotten past the circularity issue but I am still not sure why you are so dogmatic about Presuppositionalism being the only proper means of apologetics. I know that you have a lot on your plate with this thread already but I would love it if you could establish this position Biblically. If there is an article that has been written on the issue just link to it and I'll read it.

Also, I'm curious to know how Presuppositionalism treats less foundational issues. I think I get it as far as arguing the existence of God or the truth of the Biblical worldview but how about something like Total Depravity for example. How would you argue an issue as complex as that on a presuppositional level? Or is it that you accept things like Total Depravity as presuppositions themselves? If that is the case then I'm back to the original question of how do you decide what is and is not a presupposition?

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Balder]

Hilston,

There are a number of threads that could be picked up and pursued here. For the moment, I would like to address your continued assertions that no other worldview is capable of accounting for logic, order, morality, etc. This will entail presenting more of the Dzogchen Buddhist worldview, since that is the tradition to which I belong. Since this is an "exclusively Christian" section of TOL, if anyone asks me to change tacks and stop presenting non-Christian beliefs here, I will. My interest in this letter is indeed to counter your (baseless) claim that only the Biblical worldview is capable of adequately explaining the world, but also to provide you an opportunity to show "presuppositionalism" at work.

Can you deny that you have a blind faith concerning your use of logic?

I can, and I do.

Only the Biblical worldview can account for the regularity we see in creation.

In our discussion so far, you have not provided sufficient defense of this claim. Even if I were to accept that having a theistic "creator" behind creation were somehow logically necessary, you have not demonstrated why the Christian creator is uniquely qualified in its explanatory power. Other theistic traditions also argue that their creator is the source of all order, all being, all intelligence, all goodness, etc.

Buddhism can account for the regularity we see in creation in a number of interrelated ways. One way is the doctrine of pratitya-samutpada, which teaches that all phenomena are fundamentally interdependent and co-determining. If you hold that this present universe has a beginning (not Being itself, but this universe), then the fundamental interrelatedness of all phenomena is sufficient to explain the seamless order that you find in the development of all the relative structures of the cosmos.

As my previous passages from the Dzogchen tradition demonstrated, the "big bang" theory is accounted for in this tradition in much more explicit, subtle detail than the mythical stories of Genesis. But the Dzogchen view of the universe is neither temporally "bounded" nor "materialistic," so followers of this tradition would regard the modern scientific account as only an approximation of the real state of affairs. I will share below a number of passages from Longchen Rabjampa's Matrix of Mystery, a classic Dzogchen text

"All that exists, without exception, each and every thing, the whole of reality,
Has sprung from the one point-instant that is the operational source."

"The root of our material-mental universe is this self-existent pristine cognitiveness, a point-instant virtual singularity; since its facticity is open-dimensioned and not discernable as any concrete thing, it is a meaning-saturated field as pristine cognitiveness (chos-kyi dbyings-kyi ye-shes). The radiation field of this open dimension is the intrinsic photic character of pristine cognitiveness. Since this is there in its own lucency with its prismatic character as yet undifferentiated into color values, it is the quasi-mirroring pristine cognitiveness (me-long lta-bu'i ye-shes). Since these modes of pristine cognitiveness have one and the same operational source, differing only in name, this facet is termed the selective mapping pristine cognitiveness (so-sar rtog-pa'i ye-shes). Since these modes of pristine cognitiveness are self-existent, identical with respect to their lucency and indivisibile, this facet is termed the auto-reflective identity pristine cognitiveness (mnyam-nyid-kyi ye-shes). Since by understanding correctly the meaning-value of this cognitive character of Being all intentional ideation is actualized spontaneously, this facet is termed the precisely actualizing pristine cognitiveness (bya-ba nan-tan-gyi ye-shes). It is from this pentad of pristine cognitions as the operational source of the intelligible universe that the eighty-four thousand portals to life's meaning open up."

"This self-existent pristine cognitiveness, dissociated from the restrictive labels thematized as eternally existent or non-existent, functions such that it cannot be localized as any thing since its facticity is openness; it never ceases coming-into-presence because its actuality is lucency; and it provides the ground and reason for the emergence of any and all thematic features because as resonating concern (thugs-rje) it never ceases providing for ever-new possibilities, and is therefore the ever-present existential reality."

Hilton asked:
Is the SEPC a personal entity, or more like an energy or cosmological state?

The passages above speak of the SEPC in impersonal, "process" language. But Dzogchen also uses personal language:

"Hai! The teacher of teachers, the king who is the creator of universes
Has patterned the energy that is his as a gestalt (sku) configuration so that
The whole of reality as it is present in discrete visible units
Stays patterned as the dynamic reach and range of Being's meaning-
Saturated field which has nothing to do with (conventional notions of) coming-into-
existence."

In some texts, the SEPC speaks directly:

"All that is has me -- universal creativity, pure and total presence -- as its root."

"Without understanding me, the creativity of the universe,
But investigating the phenomena that I manifest,
You perceive everything dualistically due to your attachments and longing."

The creative ordering principle of the universe (kun-byed rgyal-po), as the SEPC is sometimes described in Dzogchen, transcends the categories we ascribe to things, whether personal or impersonal, existent or non-existent, and thus is not referred to as an "entity," which carries all sorts of inappropriately limiting connotations. But nevertheless it should not thereby be "reduced" in our minds to something akin to lifeless matter or a bland abstraction: rather, self-existent pristine cognitiveness is majestic in its limitless, immaculate nature and intelligence.

Creation in Dzogchen is sometimes described as the "ornamentation" of openness or Being. As the following passages, as well as the preceding ones indicate, the Buddhist Dzogchen tradition is quite up to the task of providing a basis for logic, order, consistency, morality, etc, without having to borrow anything from the Biblical worldview:

"The internal logic of Being (chos-nyid) is adorned with the formal gestalt
Expressing the meaningfulness of Being (chos-sku),
Whereby its utter openness is made beautiful by radiating everywhere.
The formal gestalt expressing the meaningfulness of Being is adorned
With pristine cognitions,
Whereby it is made beautiful by ceaselessly operative capabilities.
Pristine cognitiveness is adorned with resonating concern,
Whereby it is made beautiful by applying itself to the welfare of beings.
For this reason, by virtue of being made beautiful, one speaks of ornamentation."

"Self-existent pristine cognitiveness, which itself is the dynamics of excitatory intelligence, is described in terms of creativity, playfulness, and beauty (manifesting as ornamentation), thereby suggesting a three-fold symmetry transformation of the state --> image kind; each facet presents a specific aspect of this intelligence's emergent holistic movement."

I will grant that there are some exalted and sublime descriptions of God as the ultimate reality in the Christian tradition. But I do not think you have a case at all when you say that the Biblical worldview is the only viable or logically consistent one, or the only one adequate to explain the order and beauty of the universe. In fact, many depictions of God in the Bible give a very different impression indeed -- not of a logical being, but a very emotional and impulsive entity, given to regretting his actions and fits of jealous anger.

Peace,
Balder

 

[Hilston]

Balder writes:
Why is God logical and consistent? Why are these attributes of His nature?

I don't know. But the fact that He is logical and consistent explains why His creation functions according to those rules. If God did not exist, there could be no order, no regularity, no particulars. All would be chaos, randomness and no particulars.

Hilston wrote:
The flaw in Garver's reasoning is that he has not accounted for the full assurance, unwavering certainty, and indubitable faith that Christ has given the believer. Given that, the believer knows, fully, assuredly, unwaveringly, with unshakable certitude, that every other contender is false. The believer doesn't have to prove this to himself. He knows it is true by faith, by God's Spirit bearing witness with his own. So believers can confidently state, based on the authority of the Bible, that no other worldview can compete with the biblical worldview, and that in fact all other worldviews are reduced to absurdity.

Balder writes:
How do you know this? How do you know that "what God has revealed to you" is really true, and that it is God who has revealed it to you?

I know by the gift of faith that is given by God at the point of regeneration. Consequently, having now placed full trust in God as the sole arbiter of all things, all of human experience makes logical, scientiic, mathematic and moral sense. This confirms in my experience that which faith had already affirmed.

Balder writes:
Is it by God's revelation that you know what is revealed to you is true?

No, it is by the faith that has been given me. All knowledge is ultimately based on faith commitments. God's revelation becomes more clearly recognized and is aggressively embraced as the result of the faith gift. Without faith, God's revelation is exposing, confrontational and repulsive.

Balder writes:
If so, isn't that begging the question?

It might be begging the question if I offered that information as proof of my view, but I don't. I was asked how I knew something and I answered it. That's different from how I prove it.

Balder writes:
There are a number of threads that could be picked up and pursued here. For the moment, I would like to address your continued assertions that no other worldview is capable of accounting for logic, order, morality, etc. This will entail presenting more of the Dzogchen Buddhist worldview, since that is the tradition to which I belong.

I asked you earlier, and I'm still interested in where this tradition originated, where the writings come from, who wrote them, and whence comes his/her insight into these things?

Balder writes:
My interest in this letter is indeed to counter your (baseless) claim that only the Biblical worldview is capable of adequately explaining the world, but also to provide you an opportunity to show "presuppositionalism" at work.

You keep saying my claim is baseless. But that's because you do not believe in the Judeo-Christian God. You might as well say "God doesn't exist." If God exists, then my claim is not baseless. That's the bottom line here, Balder. And because the existence of God, to the exclusion of all other views, answers the question of a necessary precondition for the intelligibility of human experience, it behoves the gainsayer repent and to fear Him who can destroy body and soul in hell.

Hilston asked: Can you deny that you have a blind faith concerning your use of logic?

Balder writes:
I can, and I do.

Then how have you determined that you can trust your use of logic?

Hilston wrotes:
Only the Biblical worldview can account for the regularity we see in creation.

Balder writes:
In our discussion so far, you have not provided sufficient defense of this claim.

What constitutes "sufficient defense" in your mind? Please tell me what would satisfy you, and why.

Balder writes:
Even if I were to accept that having a theistic "creator" behind creation were somehow logically necessary, you have not demonstrated why the Christian creator is uniquely qualified in its explanatory power.

If the God of the Bible exists, it suffices that He declares His unique qualifications. If the God of the Bible exists, you have no grounds on which to question those qualifications. If you presume to judge him, you must justify your own standard of assessment. You presume to usurp His authority as determiner of good and evil, justice and morality, but all the while you are sitting on His lap in order to slap Him in the face.

Balder writes:
Other theistic traditions also argue that their creator is the source of all order, all being, all intelligence, all goodness, etc.

Which one do you want to defend? The existence of the claims does not make them cogent or defensible.

Balder writes:
Buddhism can account for the regularity we see in creation in a number of interrelated ways. One way is the doctrine of pratitya-samutpada, which teaches that all phenomena are fundamentally interdependent and co-determining.

If you can't prove this, it's an empty claim. I want to see the credentials of the person who wrote this; I want to know where their alleged insight came from.

Balder writes:
If you hold that this present universe has a beginning (not Being itself, but this universe), then the fundamental interrelatedness of all phenomena is sufficient to explain the seamless order that you find in the development of all the relative structures of the cosmos.

Do you believe there are universal laws, Balder?

Balder writes:
As my previous passages from the Dzogchen tradition demonstrated, the "big bang" theory is accounted for in this tradition in much more explicit, subtle detail than the mythical stories of Genesis.

I can find as much equally impressive subtle detail in Greek mythology and the Beatles White Album, that doesn't make them true. Why should I or anyone give a rip about Dzogchen tradition? Because it has a nice story? Where does the order come from, Balder? How is it that particulars exist at all?

Balder writes:
But the Dzogchen view of the universe is neither temporally "bounded" nor "materialistic," so followers of this tradition would regard the modern scientific account as only an approximation of the real state of affairs.

On what grounds, Balder? Where do you get the authority to say that science doesn't give the whole picture? Scores of people disagree with you. What should impress me about your view that would compel me to dismiss theirs?

Balder writes:
I will share below a number of passages from Longchen Rabjampa's Matrix of Mystery, a classic Dzogchen text

"All that exists, without exception, each and every thing, the whole of reality, Has sprung from the one point-instant that is the operational source."

Does that include the one point instant operational source?

Balder writes:
"The root of our material-mental universe is this self-existent pristine cognitiveness, a point-instant virtual singularity; since its facticity is open-dimensioned and not discernable as any concrete thing, it is a meaning-saturated field as pristine cognitiveness (chos-kyi dbyings-kyi ye-shes)."

How do you personally know this is true, Balder? And how do you prove it to others? Are we to be auto-reflectively impressed by the multi-modal meaning-value inventivity ('intha-loonyi bynn) of Dzogchenian wordification and hyphenicity that has been ideationally constructioned for the actualizing purposeness (krahkohooey) of operationed lucenticity (bukhettuf trype) and describicating the complexitized existationalistic awarenessicity (au'ta-wuhnz phrikking ghoort) of pristinified intelligibilitificationalismicness (blah bleedle blah' blarg blorg nya-nya-nya thblblblpbpbpbpbt)?

Hilton asked:
Is the SEPC a personal entity, or more like an energy or cosmological state?

Balder writes:
The passages above speak of the SEPC in impersonal, "process" language. But Dzogchen also uses personal language:

So is it a personal entity or not? When SEPC speaks directly, is it figurative, or actual thoughts coming from the SEPC? What is Dzogchen's source for the very words of SEPC, and what compels you to believe he accurately recorded them?

Balder writes:
SEPC says:
"All that is has me -- universal creativity, pure and total presence -- as its root."

"Without understanding me, the creativity of the universe,
But investigating the phenomena that I manifest,
You perceive everything dualistically due to your attachments and longing."

Please explain the kind of dualism that SEPC decries here and how he/she/it resolves it. Can you give an example?

Balder writes:
As the following passages, as well as the preceding ones indicate, the Buddhist Dzogchen tradition is quite up to the task of providing a basis for logic, order, consistency, morality, etc, without having to borrow anything from the Biblical worldview:

"The internal logic of Being (chos-nyid) is adorned with the formal gestalt

What does that mean? What is "internal logic of Being"? What does it mean to be "adorned with the formal gestalt?"

Balder writes:
Expressing the meaningfulness of Being (chos-sku),
Whereby its utter openness is made beautiful by radiating everywhere.
The formal gestalt expressing the meaningfulness of Being is adorned
With pristine cognitions,

What does this mean? What is the meaningfulness of Being? And how is it "adorned with pristine cognitions?"

Balder writes:
Whereby it is made beautiful by ceaselessly operative capabilities.

What does this mean?

Balder writes:
Pristine cognitiveness is adorned with resonating concern, ...

How is pristine cognitiveness "adorned with resonating concern"? Can an impersonal non-entity Being have concern?

Balder writes:
Whereby it is made beautiful by applying itself to the welfare of beings.

It cares?

Balder writes:
For this reason, by virtue of being made beautiful, one speaks of ornamentation."

For all this use of the term beauty, is there a definition?

My claim is that the Biblical worldview makes human experience intelligible. Your claim is that the Dzogchenian tradition does so as well. But here's a big problem, Balder: The Dzogchenian tradition itself is unintelligible. It appears to be a conceptual quagmire.

 

[Hilston]

Reply to Billwald:

Hilston wrote: "I've given the proof. Here it is again: Without the existence of the God of the Bible, no sense whatsoever can be made of the most important aspects of man's existence: science, morality, logic, human dignity, time, space, knowledge, etc.,"

Billwald writes:
NO, First, you fail to differentiate between physics and metaphysics.

Then take me to school, Billwald. How does my failure to differentiate physics and metaphysics invalidate my proof?

Billwald writes:
Second, without the Bible - especially to those who believe that it is the chronologically first historical writing - there is no logical to assume that the metaphysical questions are of any importance at all.

Since I believe neither of those things, how are they at all relevant to this discussion?

Billwald writes:
Third, the physical observations would still be made if there was no metaphysics.

Who are you talking to, Billwald?

Billwald writes:
In other words, If the Young EarthGenesis conclusions are not correct then the physical observations probably preceded the generation of the metaphysical problems.

Oooooo-kay. Thanks for sharing.

 

[Balder]

Hilston,

Balder writes:
Why is God logical and consistent? Why are these attributes of His nature?

Hilston replies:
I don't know. But the fact that He is logical and consistent explains why His creation functions according to those rules. If God did not exist, there could be no order, no regularity, no particulars. All would be chaos, randomness and no particulars.

What about matter or existence makes you think that, without the Judeo-Christian God, it would behave chaotically? Aren't you saying that matter's observable orderliness makes the existence of an orderly "creator" necessary, in other words arguing from a known property of matter -- its relative stability and structure -- and saying that there must be a reason it is this way and not chaotic? But why do you make this assumption? Why should chaos be more natural and necessary than order? This is a big presupposition, don't you think?

Really, it seems you are saying, because there is order, there must be an orderly creator...an entity of some sort which possesses the quality of "orderliness"; which when you look at it is really another way of saying, because there is order, there must be order. When asked why God Himself is orderly, you only say, "I don't know" -- meaning, essentially, that He is that way because He is that way. If you recall your conversation with Aussie Thinker, you berated Him for thinking this way, saying it was irrational and unacceptable.

Balder writes:
How do you know this? How do you know that "what God has revealed to you" is really true, and that it is God who has revealed it to you? Is it by God's revelation that you know what is revealed to you is true?

Hilston replies:
I know by the gift of faith that is given by God at the point of regeneration. Consequently, having now placed full trust in God as the sole arbiter of all things, all of human experience makes logical, scientiic, mathematic and moral sense. This confirms in my experience that which faith had already affirmed... It is by the faith that has been given me. All knowledge is ultimately based on faith commitments. God's revelation becomes more clearly recognized and is aggressively embraced as the result of the faith gift...

So, what you are saying is that you believe (have faith) that you are right, based on a subjective feeling, and that this feeling makes you aggressive... (From what I've read on your website, you need to chill, and to turn your whiffle bat over to a responsible adult.)

Seriously, I'm happy that the Biblical worldview has allowed you to make sense of the world in a way that is personally satisfying and fulfilling. But your feeling of confidence and your conviction that your worldview is better and more satisfactory than anyone else's are not sufficient reasons for me to suddenly drop my own worldview and adopt yours, especially when I also find the worldview I have embraced to make more sense of the world than other worldviews that I have encountered. I will listen to your views and consider them, particularly when they are offered with rational support and not just expressed as ultimatums or sweeping generalizations, but you have not yet come close to making a cogent argument why the Biblical worldview surpasses all other possible perspectives, and must necessarily do so.

If God exists, then my claim is not baseless... If the God of the Bible exists, it suffices that He declares His unique qualifications. If the God of the Bible exists, you have no grounds on which to question those qualifications. If you presume to judge him, you must justify your own standard of assessment...

There are a lot of IFs here, don't you think? That is the operative word.

I will return later to respond to the rest of your letter.

Peace,
Balder

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by Hilston
How do you personally know this is true, Balder? And how do you prove it to others? Are we to be auto-reflectively impressed by the multi-modal meaning-value inventivity ('intha-loonyi bynn) of Dzogchenian wordification and hyphenicity that has been ideationally constructioned for the actualizing purposeness (krahkohooey) of operationed lucenticity (bukhettuf trype) and describicating the complexitized existationalistic awarenessicity (au'ta-wuhnz phrikking ghoort) of pristinified intelligibilitificationalismicness (blah bleedle blah' blarg blorg nya-nya-nya thblblblpbpbpbpbt)?

:chuckle: I love this! It's both a brilliant argument and hysterically funny at the same time!

Excellent! :thumb:

 

[Balder]

I love this! It's both a brilliant argument and hysterically funny at the same time!

Excellent!

When I first read Hilston's parody, I was just irritated. But then I went back and found it pretty funny. I disagree that Hilston made a good argument with his parody, but his phrases are hysterical.

The translator's choice of language (pristine cognitiveness instead of pure consciousness, for example) makes the reading more difficult, although he has legitimate reasons for being picky with his words, and for having to coin some new ones (since English has no exact matches). And Tibetan language, which has a lot of silent letters, looks pretty clunky and unpronounceable in the English alphabet (though it looks pretty cool in Tibetan script.) So, there's plenty there to work with if you've a mind to mock it.

 

[Balder]

Hilston,

I asked you earlier, and I'm still interested in where this tradition originated, where the writings come from, who wrote them, and whence comes his/her insight into these things?

The author of the text I’ve been quoting is Longchen Rabjampa, a Tibetan hermit and scholar who lived during the 12th century. The earliest extant Dzogchen texts are from the 8th century, which appears to be the time that Dzogchen first appeared in Tibet. Those texts, however, indicate that Dzogchen originated centuries earlier in Odiyana, a country to the west of Tibet, most likely in the area of present-day Afghanistan. Longchen Rabjampa is one of the most respected writers in the Dzogchen tradition, and is regarded as one of the great contemplatives of the tradition. He was a scholar of Buddhism, studying widely with various teachers, but two mystical experiences (one lasting three days and one lasting seven) had a huge impact on him and he spent the remainder of his life as a contemplative. His “insight into these things” comes from his spiritual (visionary and contemplative) experience as well as his prodigious study of Buddhist teachings.

How have you determined that you can trust your use of logic?

For the most part, it hasn’t failed me. And because I have faith that all of reality proceeds from and is pervaded by the pristine intelligence of its base, the clarity of which is the light of my own consciousness and the consciousness of all living beings.

But perhaps we shouldn’t just throw the word “logic” around too blithely. What do you mean by it? Are you assuming that there is a single “logical system” that undergirds the whole universe? Which logical system is that? Aristotelian logic, fractal logic, quantum logic, institutional logic, “included middle” logic, modal logic, doxastic logic, deontological logic, multivalent logic, paraconsistent logic, or anti-realist logic? The fact that logic “works” certainly suggests that there is order to the universe, including human consciousness of the universe, but at the same time “logic” is a human construct. Recent studies in cognitive science have revealed, in fact, that rather than being composed primarily of intuited universal Essences, our logical systems are based largely on metaphors that are rooted pretty firmly in embodied human experience.

To illustrate, here’s a passage from a recent publication, The Embodied Mind:

“We saw how several of Aristotle’s most famous doctrines are the consequence of his weaving together of conceptual metaphors. Take, for instance, his fateful view of logic as purely formal. This view emerges in the following way. Predications are Categories. That is, to predicate an attribute of a thing is to place it within a category. Categories are understood metaphorically as abstract containers. Syllogisms, as forms of deductive reasoning, work via a container logic (e.g., A is in B, and B is in C, so A is in C). We also saw that Aristotle’s founding metaphor was Ideas are Essences. To conceptualize a thing is to categorize it, which is to state its essence, the defining attributes that make it the kind of thing it is. For Aristotle, then, the essences of things in the world, since they are what constitute ideas, can actually be in the mind. And for the essence to be in the mind, it cannot be the substance or matter of a thing; rather, it must be its form: Essences Are Forms. So, if our ideas are the forms of things, and we reason with the forms of things, then logic is purely formal, abstracting away from the content.

“Seeing these tight connections among the metaphors explains for us the logic of Aristotle’s arguments and shows us why he has the doctrines he has. Once we see this, we also see that there is no absolute necessity about this particular view of things. It is a view based on a metaphorical logic that uses one particular set of conceptual metaphors. However, there are other possible metaphors for understanding logic and reasoning in ways inconsistent with the metaphors Aristotle used to characterize ‘logic.’”

Logic, as a human conceptual system, is not infallible, obviously. Aristotle followed his own logic to some pretty far-out and ultimately incorrect scientific predictions.

I agree with you that there is order and coherence to the universe, which is accounted for in the Buddhist worldview by the radical interdependence of phenomena, the holism of reality, and the pervasive intelligence of Being known as buddhanature or rigpa (pristine cognitiveness), but we shouldn’t naively assume, say, that Aristotelian or some other human system of logic somehow “underlies” the universe or informs the nature of God.

It’s late and I haven’t finished responding to your letter, but I’ll stop for now. I’ve given you enough to work with for now, I’m sure. I’ll return to the rest later.

Peace,
Balder

 

[Hilston]

Balder writes:
What about matter or existence makes you think that, without the Judeo-Christian God, it would behave chaotically?

My claim is not based on my perception of matter or existence, but rather upon God's, regardless of whether or not I perceive them as chaotic or orderly. My personal belief in God is a priori, not a posteriori. So that belief informs all of my thinking; God pre-interprets all facts and data for the believer. Man is not autonomous, though he would like to be.

Balder writes:
Aren't you saying that matter's observable orderliness makes the existence of an orderly "creator" necessary, in other words arguing from a known property of matter -- its relative stability and structure -- and saying that there must be a reason it is this way and not chaotic?

I do say this, but not on my own authority or truth claim, but on the authoritative declaration of God.

Balder writes:
But why do you make this assumption?

It's not an assumption. It is an objective truth.

Balder writes:
Why should chaos be more natural and necessary than order? This is a big presupposition, don't you think?

It's not a presupposition. I don't believe there is such a thing as chaos, precisely because God is the Creator, and His creation is orderly and purposeful, not chaotic, random or indeterminate in any way. What we view as chaos (or chaotic) is actually merely a limited purview.

Balder writes:
Really, it seems you are saying, because there is order, there must be an orderly creator, an entity of some sort which possesses the quality of "orderliness"; which when you look at it is really another way of saying, because there is order, there must be order.

If my assumption of God's existence were based on that evidence, your criticism would be correct. But it's actually the other way around. Rather, since there is a personal, logical, righteous, omniscient and omnipotent Creator there is order.

Balder writes:
When asked why God Himself is orderly, you only say, "I don't know" -- meaning, essentially, that He is that way because He is that way. If you recall your conversation with Aussie Thinker, you berated Him for thinking this way, saying it was irrational and unacceptable.

When I say "I don't know," I am not saying He is that way because He is that way. I offer no causal accounting of God, whereas Aussie Thinker was attempting a causal accounting of logic. It is not at all the same kind of thinking Aussie Thinker was guilty of. There is no causal explanation being offered when I say, "I don't know." Whereas, when Aussie Thinker says, "It happened because it did," he is offering a causal explanation that is blatantly irrational, unacceptable and amounts to a blind faith commitment.

Balder writes:
So, what you are saying is that you believe (have faith) that you are right, based on a subjective feeling, and that this feeling makes you aggressive ...

My faith is indeed subjective, but it is not a faith in my own correctness directly, but rather a faith in the correctness of God. You can say I believe I am correct about God being correct, and that would be fine. But it needs to be pointed out that even that particular belief, the belief that I am right about God's existence, nature and attributes, according to the biblical worldview, is a gift from God. To be even more clear, belief in God is not based on a feeling per se, but a recognition of truth, a conviction and certainty about God that is humanly inexplicable. And as to the idea of being "aggressive," the intended point was to contrast the response of the regenerated man, who eagerly embraces God's word and pursue mastery of it as paramount in his life, to that of the unregenerate, who pushes God's word away from him.

Balder writes:
(From what I've read on your website, you need to chill, and to turn your whiffle bat over to a responsible adult.)

You're probably right. I don't know how much longer I can last here with all those cops outside. I have enough provisions to last me another couple of months, at which point I'll probably have to come out and give up the whiffle bat.

Balder writes:
Seriously, I'm happy that the Biblical worldview has allowed you to make sense of the world in a way that is personally satisfying and fulfilling. But your feeling of confidence and your conviction that your worldview is better and more satisfactory than anyone else's are not sufficient reasons for me to suddenly drop my own worldview and adopt yours, especially when I also find the worldview I have embraced to make more sense of the world than other worldviews that I have encountered.

If you will permit me, my goal is to disabuse you of that conviction, which I believe to be false. I invite you to try to disabuse me of mine and to try to give me good reasons to adopt yours.

Hilston wrote: If God exists, then my claim is not baseless... If the God of the Bible exists, it suffices that He declares His unique qualifications. If the God of the Bible exists, you have no grounds on which to question those qualifications.

Balder writes:
There are a lot of IFs here, don't you think? That is the operative word.

No, there is only one, repeated 3 times in the same way. All it takes is for that one "IF" to be true and everything else falls into place.

Balder writes:
The author of the text I’ve been quoting is Longchen Rabjampa, a Tibetan hermit and scholar who lived during the 12th century. ... His “insight into these things” comes from his spiritual (visionary and contemplative) experience as well as his prodigious study of Buddhist teachings.

[Snip bulk of excerpt] Thank you for those details (and for not quoting a Tibetan manuscript ). I do find it fascinating, but I must ask you, does any of this historical information compel your belief in the verity of Dzogchen claims? Or is there more that impresses you? I mean, certainly there are others throughout history who have comparable resumes and credentials. What is it about Dzogchen that gets your vote to the exclusion of the others?

Hilston asked:
How have you determined that you can trust your use of logic?

Balder writes:
For the most part, it hasn’t failed me.

Do you realize the fact that if your logical faculties were flawed, you would have no way of knowing, since you would have to use your logical faculties in order to make such an assessment? I like to blurt out, in non sequitur fashion: "Look at that! The Law of Induction just stopped working!" Most people don't get it and they just look at me funny. The joke, of course, is that induction would have to be used in order to come to such a conclusion, but if induction doesn't work anymore, how could such a conclusion ever be drawn? This is the epistemological dilemma that is (often unwittingly) posed when one says "Logic hasn't failed me, for the most part."

Balder writes:
And because I have faith that all of reality proceeds from and is pervaded by the pristine intelligence of its base, ...

Why do you have faith in this concept?

Balder writes:
... the clarity of which is the light of my own consciousness and the consciousness of all living beings.

This assumes that the light to which you refer actually exists, right? What convinces you of its existence?

Balder writes:
But perhaps we shouldn’t just throw the word “logic” around too blithely. What do you mean by it? Are you assuming that there is a single “logical system” that undergirds the whole universe?

I don't assume that. I know it based on the testimony of God.

Balder writes:
Which logical system is that? Aristotelian logic, fractal logic, quantum logic, institutional logic, “included middle” logic, modal logic, doxastic logic, deontological logic, multivalent logic, paraconsistent logic, or anti-realist logic? The fact that logic “works” certainly suggests that there is order to the universe, including human consciousness of the universe, but at the same time “logic” is a human construct.

Do you believe modus ponens true before man used and codified it?

Balder writes:
Recent studies in cognitive science have revealed, in fact, that rather than being composed primarily of intuited universal Essences, our logical systems are based largely on metaphors that are rooted pretty firmly in embodied human experience.

Given that the human is the imago Dei, it follows that human logical systems and human experience regarding them align with the testimony of God.

Balder writes:
To illustrate, here’s a passage from a recent publication, The Embodied Mind: ...

[Snip excerpt] While some of the language and ideas are similar to the publications I've read of other cognitive scientists, there's something strange about these writers. I've checked all the more recent books I have on cognitive science (since 1991, when "Embodied Mind" was published) and none of them mention any of the authors Franscisco J. Varela, Evan T. Thompson, or Eleanor Rosch. I checked LeDoux, Pinker, Searle (my favorite, by the way), Sejnowski, Dennett ,et al. Has their work been peer-reviewed? Where have their studies been published, besides "The Embodied Mind"?

Balder writes:
Logic, as a human conceptual system, is not infallible, obviously. Aristotle followed his own logic to some pretty far-out and ultimately incorrect scientific predictions.

Man has his logical systems, and they are not infallible. Where they fail is precisely where they depart from the universal laws of logic that reflect the nature of God in the created order. Do you believe in any single law of logic that is universal?

Balder writes:
I agree with you that there is order and coherence to the universe, which is accounted for in the Buddhist worldview by the radical interdependence of phenomena, the holism of reality, and the pervasive intelligence of Being known as buddhanature or rigpa (pristine cognitiveness), ...

Why do you believe this?

Balder writes:
... but we shouldn’t naively assume, say, that Aristotelian or some other human system of logic somehow “underlies” the universe or informs the nature of God.

As I indicated earlier, there are no an assumptions in the case of the believer who lives and thinks according to the Biblical worldview. Also, as I stated before, the believer does not ascertain God's nature on the basis of his own autonomous assessment of the natural order. The only reliable informant about the nature of God is God Himself. All other means are suspect at best, but can be generally relied upon solely because God, who is the source of all predication, is back of them.

Thank you for this discussion, Balder. I'm hoping to get a better grasp of what you believe and why you believe it as the result of these exchanges.

Bis später

 

[Balder]

Hilston,

ince there is a personal, logical, righteous, omniscient and omnipotent Creator there is order.

How do you know there is a personal, logical, righteous, omniscient and omnipotent Creator?

Hilston writes:
My personal belief in God is a priori, not a posteriori.

Where do you get your knowledge of God’s nature? If it is from the testimony of the authors of the Bible, or from the testimony of creation, then it is a posteriori knowledge, is it not? Your “knowledge” comes by way of the experience of hearing the testimony of someone/thing you regard as a reliable agent.

It's not an assumption (that matter would be chaotic without an orderly creator behind it). It is an objective truth.

What is the basis for your claim that this is ‘objective truth’? Are you deferring to the absolute authority which you have granted to the Bible?

I guess what I am wanting to get at here with this series of quotes and questions is the reason for your belief in the absolute reliability and “divine origin” of the Bible. In other threads, I have touched on this subject with Clete and BChristianK, and I suggested it was likely to be central to the arguments of this thread. So, would you mind talking a little about why you believe the Bible to be the infallible word of God?

Balder wrote:
Even if I were to accept that having a theistic "creator" behind creation were somehow logically necessary, you have not demonstrated why the Christian creator is uniquely qualified in its explanatory power.

If the God of the Bible exists, it suffices that He declares His unique qualifications. If the God of the Bible exists, you have no grounds on which to question those qualifications. If you presume to judge him, you must justify your own standard of assessment. You presume to usurp His authority as determiner of good and evil, justice and morality, but all the while you are sitting on His lap in order to slap Him in the face.

I responded to these comments before, but I am returning to them again because they really didn’t answer my question. You made an emotional appeal by declaring my questions to be insouciant, but you still haven’t told me why the Judeo-Christian concept of God is uniquely qualified above all others to account for the universe as we know it. As I said in a previous letter, many apologists make an unfounded leap from demonstrating (in their minds) the logical need for a “first cause” to asserting, “Therefore, Christianity is true.” And that is intellectually dishonest.

When I say "I don't know," I am not saying He is that way because He is that way. I offer no causal accounting of God, whereas Aussie Thinker was attempting a causal accounting of logic. It is not at all the same kind of thinking Aussie Thinker was guilty of. There is no causal explanation being offered when I say, "I don't know." Whereas, when Aussie Thinker says, "It happened because it did," he is offering a causal explanation that is blatantly irrational, unacceptable and amounts to a blind faith commitment.

If Aussie Thinker had not been innocently lured into your trap and had refused to give a causal accounting for logic or order, insisting instead only on their primordial necessity, would you still have accused him of blind faith? Why or why not?

Thank you for those details (and for not quoting a Tibetan manuscript). I do find it fascinating, but I must ask you, does any of this historical information compel your belief in the verity of Dzogchen claims? Or is there more that impresses you? I mean, certainly there are others throughout history who have comparable resumes and credentials. What is it about Dzogchen that gets your vote to the exclusion of the others?

I don’t believe in Dzogchen to the exclusion of all other views. I have higher esteem for it than for other views, within Buddhism and without, but I do not believe that all other views must therefore of necessity be false. Rather, I see them as less complete, or sometimes (say, in the case of Mahamudra) as parallel expressions of the same truth, with slightly different emphases and styles of presentation. Heck, I even believe Christianity is partially true…although the “reflections of truth” that I see in Christianity have been dismissed by some here as shameless importations of Buddhism. (*shrug* Guilty as charged.)

My faith in the Dzogchen body of teachings does not rest only on my esteem for some of its teachers and writers. I related to the content of the teachings before I knew much about the authors, because the teachings themselves resolved problems I’d encountered and deeply illuminated glimpses I’d had during my several years of meditation in monasteries in Asia. Within Tibetan Buddhism itself, Dzogchen is highly revered; it is considered the highest “vehicle,” and for most of its history it was a relatively secret tradition, not taught openly but only one-to-one. Dzogchen is also the only tradition within Buddhism that has numerous examples of its masters and practitioners attaining jalu, the transfiguration of the body into pure energy upon death, or in some cases, instead of death. (This has occurred up until the present day. The Catholic church is aware of it, and recently sent priests to investigate an occurrence in a remote village of Nepal.) I have also been practicing Dzogchen meditation and studying with several Tibetan teachers since the early ‘90s, and this direct experience of its teachings and its meditative practices has only strengthened my faith in the truth of this tradition.

While some of the language and ideas are similar to the publications I've read of other cognitive scientists, there's something strange about these writers. I've checked all the more recent books I have on cognitive science (since 1991, when "Embodied Mind" was published) and none of them mention any of the authors Franscisco J. Varela, Evan T. Thompson, or Eleanor Rosch. I checked LeDoux, Pinker, Searle (my favorite, by the way), Sejnowski, Dennett ,et al. Has their work been peer-reviewed? Where have their studies been published, besides "The Embodied Mind"?

I have to apologize here; I misattributed the quote. The title of the book is Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and Its Challenge to Western Thought. The phrase from the subtitle is what stuck out in my mind. I have also read Varela’s book, The Embodied Mind, however, and consider it to be quite good. Varela’s work as a neurophysiologist and a cognitive scientist actually inspired him to begin active study and practice of Buddhism, because of the consonance he discovered between his own findings (autopoesis, body-mind nondualism, enactive emergence of cognition, etc) and some of the central claims and phenomenological practices of Buddhism. However, Varela is not who I was quoting. The authors of the passage I cited are George Lakoff and Mark Johnson. Since you brought up Varela, though, and questioned his credentials, you might want to check out a website dealing with much of the body of his work:
http://www.ccr.jussieu.fr/varela/publications/index.html

Do you realize the fact that if your logical faculties were flawed, you would have no way of knowing, since you would have to use your logical faculties in order to make such an assessment? I like to blurt out, in non sequitur fashion: "Look at that! The Law of Induction just stopped working!" Most people don't get it and they just look at me funny. The joke, of course, is that induction would have to be used in order to come to such a conclusion, but if induction doesn't work anymore, how could such a conclusion ever be drawn? This is the epistemological dilemma that is (often unwittingly) posed when one says "Logic hasn't failed me, for the most part."

That’s a nice point. What I was referring to, however, was human systems of logic, which indeed sometimes prove fallible.

This letter is long, it rambles all over the place, and I still haven’t gotten to all of your comments. But I’ll leave off for now.

Peace,
Balder