Balder writes:Hilston,
quote:
So if you will indulge me, I wish to ask you more general questions in light of my (admittedly inadequate) understanding of Buddhism.
That's a good idea. That's why I gave you a concise statement why I believed Buddhism provided the foundations for a coherent worldview and met all the standards of validity which you believe apply exclusively to Christianity -- I thought we could build on those few key claims.
The plan sounds good, but it just doesn't pan out. When you gave explanations, I asked for clarifications on things I didn't understand. Then I couldn't understand your explanations without further explanation, which I also couldn't understand. It's horribly uninviting and discouraging to make an effort toward understanding something, only to be hamstrung time and again by a deeper and deeper quagmire (or so it seems) of alien terminology, invented words, syntactic acrobatics, and Tibetan guru-speak. How am I to tell the difference between what you say and the words of someone who is not being honest, but just trying to jack me around to try to prove me wrong. I've said it before, and I'll say it again because I'm earnestly interested if you can disprove this. How do I know that all of this is nothing more than your own obsession with trying to dissect obscure ramblings of some ancient writings and to find warm-and-fuzzy "enlightenment" by shoehorning modern scientific explanations into Dzogchen, not unlike how modern interpreters try to eisogete Nostradamus as a foreteller of modern events?
Hilston wrote:
I know aspects of the true logical system insofar as I understand what the Bible has to say about logic, by description and by example. I'm no logician, but I have a basic understanding. I'm also familiar with some of the human corruptions of logic.
...The true logical system is both demonstrated and affirmed in the Judeo-Christian Bible. My knowledge of the general reliability of my logical processes is based on faith in the Judeo-Christian Bible. Of course, my initial use of logic, prior to my introduction to the Bible, came quite naturally, as it does with most everyone. However, my later encounters with the teachings of the Bible explained to me the nearly universal recognition and/or use of the laws of logic.
Balder writes:
If you know the "true logical system" only partially, and largely by faith, how are you able to ascertain which human systems of logic are corruptions of a logical system which is admittedly opaque to you?
You misunderstand. First, I'm not a logician; that doesn't mean I do not use logic successfully. Most people use logic successfully and have never had a class on advanced logic. Second, my knowledge of logic is not "largely on faith." As I said, I knew and understood the use of logic prior to my introduction to the Bible. My trust and certainty in logic is ultimately based on faith, but my understanding, use, and application of it preceded faith in Christ and the Bible. And Third, my faith in Christ and the Bible enables me to make sweeping and general claims (such as "no other worldview can account for the intelligibility of human experience" and "the true logical system is both demonstrated and affirmed in the J-C Bible") because I appeal to an Authority Who makes that claim. That does not absolve me from having to demonstrate it, but I can confidently take that as my starting point because my Authority has given that direction and instruction.
Balder writes:
When you write, "My knowledge of the general reliability of my logical processes is based on faith in the Judeo-Christian Bible," I pick up on a (perhaps unintentional) sleight-of-hand. What you really are saying is that you have faith in the general reliability of your senses based on your faith in the reliability of the Biblical witness. Because if the structure of the whole rests not on direct knowledge but on faith, then the specific items which you claim are supported by that structure cannot be known more absolutely and with more surety than the supporting structure itself.
No, knowledge based on faith is still knowledge. The question is whether or not that knowledge can be certain, and that depends on the verity of what one's faith is based upon. My certainty of knowledge is based on the Judeo-Christian faith, which is objective faith in the Person of Christ. I knew how to use logic before I had faith in Christ, but if someone were to press me on my certainty in that knowledge, I would be left with a blind faith commitment to my own experience, which is hardly reliable apart from some assured grounding of it. David Hume is excellent on this point, and remains unanswered by anti- or non-biblical philosophers.
Balder writes:
You say that the Judeo-Christian Bible demonstrates and affirms the "true logical system." I have several questions about this claim. We've ascertained that you're not sure about all of the particulars of the "true logical system," ...
I can be sure that all the particulars are accounted for, whether or not I have the personal ability to articulate the details thereof. Just as I can be sure that no other system of thought apart from the Biblical worldview can account for reality, even if I have personally never encountered every other system of thought.
Balder writes:
... but you have faith that what is recorded in the Bible definitely reflects aspects of it. First off, how do you know this?
I
know because of regeneration. When my dead spirit was made alive at regeneration, God's Spirit gave to me the gift of faith and certitude regarding the Judeo-Christian Bible.
Balder writes:
How do you know the Bible reflects parts of an entity which is unknown to you, at least in its full expression?
Same answer as immediately above.
Balder writes:
Aren't you really saying that, based on your faith in the Bible, you have faith that whatever logical elements show up in the Bible must be "parts" of the true system of logic?
Sure, you can put it that way. But it's much more complete than your characterization of it. Look at it this way: The Bible, rightly understood, describes reality in a way that comports with my daily experience. With a priori faith in the verity of the Bible, I then compare its claims to my personal experience and I see congruity and verification. Therefore I conclude that my personal experience must be generally trustworthy and reliable. If, hypothetically speaking, my personal experience did not line up with scripture, then my a priori faith in scripture would tell me that something is wrong with
me, not scripture. Schizophrenic and alcoholic believers may have to deal with this more often than those who do not have these debilitating conditions.
Balder writes:
I've read the Bible front to back, and I do not recall many overt claims about logic, laws of logic, the necessary foundations for logic, and so on.
The very language of scripture already assumes it. The claims of miracles assumes logical inference and the uniformity of nature, otherwise, miracles would not be called miracles. The scriptures ask the reader to make inferences on all sorts of levels. The scriptures ask the reader to observe events, natural phenomena, properties of nature, etc., and to draw conclusions therefrom. If the Bible is God's inerrant and infallible Word, and if the language used by God affirms my own understanding of language and logic, then I have sufficient grounding for my use of logic. The Son of God is called the "Logos," the Word, the articulation of God's decrees. Creation reflects aspects of the Creator's nature and character. In a sense, the created order is a manifestation of aspects of the Logos, God decreed creation, and because God is logical, so is the universe He created and the laws that govern it.
Balder writes:
Admittedly it's been at least 10 years since I read the Bible all the way through, so my memory may be failing me; can you point me to direct, clear Biblical teachings on logic? I have no problem believing that the Bible affirms and demonstrates logic, but that feature is certainly not unique to the Bible.
That is true. My high school geometry book affirmed and demonstrated logic. But even Archimedes understood the problem of geometry sans a grounding of the concepts he developed. He lamented not having a
pou sto, or a
locus standi, a ledge or fulcrum at which ground his lever. And that's what makes the Bible unique. The existence of God provides the ledge or fulcrum by which one can "move the world," that is, ground one's knowledge. Without it, there is only blind faith and knowledge floating in the void.
Balder writes:
I would dare say that most human documents at least implicitly affirm and demonstrate logic, if only because logic is a feature (but not the only feature) of human communication and thus human texts.
I fully agree.
Balder writes:
Is there something about the Bible's affirmation and demonstration of logic that sets it in a league of its own, as the exemplar and in fact the necessary foundation of logic itself?
Yes, and that is the fact that the Bible claims to be God's inerrant and infallible Word. Add to that the fact that those who are regenerated to faith in the Author of that book by the very same Author further affirms its uniqueness and declares it to the world.
Balder writes:
You may have read some of my correspondence with Clete and others on the "Religion is Obsolete" thread. I'm interested in your thoughts: if the Bible is indeed the ultimate source and foundation for logic and truth, forming the presuppositional bedrock for all valid forms of knowledge, how do you account for the fact that the Bible presupposes an outmoded, mythological, and factually incorrect cosmology as the backdrop of its narrative?
That's incorrect. It doesn't presuppose that at all. For example, the narrative of the Zodiac preceded the documentation of the Torah. Abel understood the right sacrifice God required by that which was taught to him in the Zodiac. Abraham understood the message of the Coming One in the constellations as well. This is an example of how critics take their own presuppositions, e.g. that ancients were "primitive" and cosmologically ignorant, and impose them upon the text to draw convenient dismissive conclusions. The biblical view is that the ancients were quite advanced in their understanding of these things and that anything that appears to be "primitive" or cosmologically incorrect is actually figurative language that was familiar, meaningful and unambiguous to the original audience.
More to come.
Cheers.
