Monday, June 27, 2005
The Foundation
In a recent speech, the president of the United States outlined his vision for the World. He used two key terms as a part of this vision: liberty and self-determination. This is not intended to be a political discussion, but this writer is philosophically skeptical of not of liberty, but of self-determination. If a foreign government has to secure liberty by military or diplomatic means, it stands to reason that though they may have liberty, and though they might have the capability to change rulers with peaceful elections, they are not self-determinate. This is because they are dependent on someone else for the at least the beginning, if not the sustenance of their freedom.
Self-determination
This leads the discussion to a deeper issue. If any level of dependency negates true self-determination, how can any one claim it? Self-determination seems to imply independence at a fundamental level. In a democracy, direct or indirect, the citizen is still dependent on a coalition of voters to accomplish anything. This implies that the citizen is not truly independent. The libertarians of this age would state that such a fact is proof positive that a national government is counterproductive to individual liberty.
But this is not a discussion of politics. The question remains in a larger sense, regardles of governmental systems. Who is truly self-determinant? As a devout Christian, I am certain that God is the only answer. Since all creation is by definition made, all creation is inherently dependent on God for both its origin and sustenance. God does not need His created order. He merely uses it as He made it: for His good pleasure.
As the sole Self-determiner, He is the foundation of all knowledge that mankind has. When asked concerning the underlying premise for any concept, the Christian must answer that God is the underlying premise. Thus giving Him the rightful place as Self-determiner.
A Problem
This poses a problem for all Christians. The Christian concept of God seems to have fallen into a trap. If God is the underlying premise for all knowledge, He must then be the underlying premise for His own existence. Any beginning logician who hears the argument that God Himself proves God Himself will recognize the circularity. Conventions of logic state that circularity begs the question, and therefore fails to answer the principle under question.
To respond to this problem, many Christian aplogetic giants have sought a path of arguing for Christianity from a different, linear principle in logic. This principle, briefly described here, starts with some basic principles of epistemology accepted by all, such as the law of non-contradiction, and the basic relability of the senses. This then moves to the causal necessity for God to explain the origin of all things, the need for a revelation of such a God, and proofs of the accuracy and origin of the Bible. From there, the Bible is exposited to prove the rest of Christian theology, such as trinitarianism, divine sovereignty, sin, salvation, etcetera.
But what is the fundamental problem here? This system of logic has also presented a foundation no less circular than the first. Its foundation is assumed to be self evident. Why is the law of non-contradiction worthy of this status, and not God Himslef? If God, and our knowledge of Him are subservient to outside forces (like logic and a nature), then He is no more self-determinant than the rest of us. His lofty place has been lost.
Do not misunderstand the point. Logic and the created order are set forth by God. They are derived from His nature and decrees. However, to base our knowledge of God Himself on anything other than God Himself as self-determinant undermines the assertion of God Himself as self-determinant.
Reason?
Perhaps an illustration is in order. Let us meet three men, Mr. Empirical, Mr Rational, and Mr. Mixed up. Mr. Empirical tells us that all knowledge is derived from sense perception. When asked to prove that sense perception is the foundation of all truth, he is under a bind. If he tries to prove his point through rationalism, he has undermined his ultimate presupposition and turned into a rationalist. If he tries to use sense perception to prove it, he has reasoned in a circle. The rationalist faces similar problems. Using reason to prove reason is circular, and using sense perception to prove reason only proves that he is not a rationalist after all. Mr. Mixed Up has seen the problem of these two men and has decided that he will not follow them into the traps of their exclusive conventions. He attempts to combine their styles of thinking. Unfortunately, he fails in his attempt to miss the traps. He reasons in a circle by saying in essence that the rational proves the empirical, and the empirical proves the rational. In so doing, he also undermines both as a source of truth.
At the heart of this difficulty is a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of truth. All of these men have an ultimate standard of truth. That ultimate standard of truth, in order to be ultimate must be self-determinate. Proof of that status (self-determinate) is dependent on the integrity of the would-be self-determinate entity. Because of this fact, all ultimate standards of truth will appear to be cirular on the surface.
In order for linear reasoning to be sound, it must have a beginning at some point. If there is no beginning for linear thought, then it is in itself finally circular. Choosing the beginning of this line is the point of self-determinancy. The point of this discussion is not to undermine linear thought. The piont of this discussion is not to establish circularity as a valid thought pattern. The point is that ultimate standards of truth are ultimately difficult. That standard of truth which is undermined by a lack of self-determinancy is not a valid point from which to start all thought. This is a test that does not apply to all thought. It applies only to the foundation of all thought.
Circularity
Having said that, the question of circularity must now be studied. Because of the fact that ultimate standards of truth must be self-determinate, they will be without a need of further proof. This creates a certain level of circularity. However, there are stringent rules governing this type of circularity. First, it must be a coherent circle. Incoherence is destructive.
An example of a destructive circularity is the false standard for dating geological layers, which states that a layer is a certain age because of the fossils contained in that layer and that they fossils are a certain age because of the layer in which they were found. This standard is destructive because it calls on two entities, each of which proves the other. Because of this, the circle is incoherent. It is reminiscent of Mr. Mixed up.
The second rule is that it must deal with the foundational. That is the second problem with the above example. It is using circularity to prove something. It is not using circularity to explain the foundation or pre condition of knowledge itself. It is not even outlining pre conditions for a specialized area of knowledge. This factor adds to the destructive nature of the example.
The third rule states that the circle must be all encompassing. The buzz of the scientific community these days is a renewed interest in Einstein's "theory of everything." The essential point is to find that foundational principle that can account for all things. So it is with our search. We are seeking for that foundational principle that can account for all knowledge. Mr. Rationalist, were he to claim rationality as self-assertive would have passed the first test of coherence and the second test of the ultimate. He fails in that he cannot account for the knowlelge of Mr. Empiricist. Mr. Empiricist fails in the same regard. Mr. Mixed up failed the first test and the second.
In a recent speech, the president of the United States outlined his vision for the World. He used two key terms as a part of this vision: liberty and self-determination. This is not intended to be a political discussion, but this writer is philosophically skeptical of not of liberty, but of self-determination. If a foreign government has to secure liberty by military or diplomatic means, it stands to reason that though they may have liberty, and though they might have the capability to change rulers with peaceful elections, they are not self-determinate. This is because they are dependent on someone else for the at least the beginning, if not the sustenance of their freedom.
Self-determination
This leads the discussion to a deeper issue. If any level of dependency negates true self-determination, how can any one claim it? Self-determination seems to imply independence at a fundamental level. In a democracy, direct or indirect, the citizen is still dependent on a coalition of voters to accomplish anything. This implies that the citizen is not truly independent. The libertarians of this age would state that such a fact is proof positive that a national government is counterproductive to individual liberty.
But this is not a discussion of politics. The question remains in a larger sense, regardles of governmental systems. Who is truly self-determinant? As a devout Christian, I am certain that God is the only answer. Since all creation is by definition made, all creation is inherently dependent on God for both its origin and sustenance. God does not need His created order. He merely uses it as He made it: for His good pleasure.
As the sole Self-determiner, He is the foundation of all knowledge that mankind has. When asked concerning the underlying premise for any concept, the Christian must answer that God is the underlying premise. Thus giving Him the rightful place as Self-determiner.
A Problem
This poses a problem for all Christians. The Christian concept of God seems to have fallen into a trap. If God is the underlying premise for all knowledge, He must then be the underlying premise for His own existence. Any beginning logician who hears the argument that God Himself proves God Himself will recognize the circularity. Conventions of logic state that circularity begs the question, and therefore fails to answer the principle under question.
To respond to this problem, many Christian aplogetic giants have sought a path of arguing for Christianity from a different, linear principle in logic. This principle, briefly described here, starts with some basic principles of epistemology accepted by all, such as the law of non-contradiction, and the basic relability of the senses. This then moves to the causal necessity for God to explain the origin of all things, the need for a revelation of such a God, and proofs of the accuracy and origin of the Bible. From there, the Bible is exposited to prove the rest of Christian theology, such as trinitarianism, divine sovereignty, sin, salvation, etcetera.
But what is the fundamental problem here? This system of logic has also presented a foundation no less circular than the first. Its foundation is assumed to be self evident. Why is the law of non-contradiction worthy of this status, and not God Himslef? If God, and our knowledge of Him are subservient to outside forces (like logic and a nature), then He is no more self-determinant than the rest of us. His lofty place has been lost.
Do not misunderstand the point. Logic and the created order are set forth by God. They are derived from His nature and decrees. However, to base our knowledge of God Himself on anything other than God Himself as self-determinant undermines the assertion of God Himself as self-determinant.
Reason?
Perhaps an illustration is in order. Let us meet three men, Mr. Empirical, Mr Rational, and Mr. Mixed up. Mr. Empirical tells us that all knowledge is derived from sense perception. When asked to prove that sense perception is the foundation of all truth, he is under a bind. If he tries to prove his point through rationalism, he has undermined his ultimate presupposition and turned into a rationalist. If he tries to use sense perception to prove it, he has reasoned in a circle. The rationalist faces similar problems. Using reason to prove reason is circular, and using sense perception to prove reason only proves that he is not a rationalist after all. Mr. Mixed Up has seen the problem of these two men and has decided that he will not follow them into the traps of their exclusive conventions. He attempts to combine their styles of thinking. Unfortunately, he fails in his attempt to miss the traps. He reasons in a circle by saying in essence that the rational proves the empirical, and the empirical proves the rational. In so doing, he also undermines both as a source of truth.
At the heart of this difficulty is a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of truth. All of these men have an ultimate standard of truth. That ultimate standard of truth, in order to be ultimate must be self-determinate. Proof of that status (self-determinate) is dependent on the integrity of the would-be self-determinate entity. Because of this fact, all ultimate standards of truth will appear to be cirular on the surface.
In order for linear reasoning to be sound, it must have a beginning at some point. If there is no beginning for linear thought, then it is in itself finally circular. Choosing the beginning of this line is the point of self-determinancy. The point of this discussion is not to undermine linear thought. The piont of this discussion is not to establish circularity as a valid thought pattern. The point is that ultimate standards of truth are ultimately difficult. That standard of truth which is undermined by a lack of self-determinancy is not a valid point from which to start all thought. This is a test that does not apply to all thought. It applies only to the foundation of all thought.
Circularity
Having said that, the question of circularity must now be studied. Because of the fact that ultimate standards of truth must be self-determinate, they will be without a need of further proof. This creates a certain level of circularity. However, there are stringent rules governing this type of circularity. First, it must be a coherent circle. Incoherence is destructive.
An example of a destructive circularity is the false standard for dating geological layers, which states that a layer is a certain age because of the fossils contained in that layer and that they fossils are a certain age because of the layer in which they were found. This standard is destructive because it calls on two entities, each of which proves the other. Because of this, the circle is incoherent. It is reminiscent of Mr. Mixed up.
The second rule is that it must deal with the foundational. That is the second problem with the above example. It is using circularity to prove something. It is not using circularity to explain the foundation or pre condition of knowledge itself. It is not even outlining pre conditions for a specialized area of knowledge. This factor adds to the destructive nature of the example.
The third rule states that the circle must be all encompassing. The buzz of the scientific community these days is a renewed interest in Einstein's "theory of everything." The essential point is to find that foundational principle that can account for all things. So it is with our search. We are seeking for that foundational principle that can account for all knowledge. Mr. Rationalist, were he to claim rationality as self-assertive would have passed the first test of coherence and the second test of the ultimate. He fails in that he cannot account for the knowlelge of Mr. Empiricist. Mr. Empiricist fails in the same regard. Mr. Mixed up failed the first test and the second.
