Article #3
Coexisting Laws in the Pursuit of Truth
I. Laws of Logic
A. Law of Identity
1. Something exists
B. Law of non-contradiction
1. Something can’t be and not be at the same time
C. Law of excluded middle
1. Something either is or is not
II. Kinds of Logic
A. Inductive Logic
1. From effect to cause
a. From particular idea to general conclusion
B. Deductive Logic
1. From cause to effect
a. From general idea to particular conclusion
III. The minds search for truth
A. Rationalist
1. Believing precedes seeing
B. Empiricist
1. Seeing precedes believing
IV. Natural law rooted in eternal law
A. Natural mind patterned after the divine Mind
V. Balance of faith and reason
A. Fideism
1. Faith over reason
B. Rationalist
1. Reason over faith
VI. Faith
A. Its relation to reason
1. The limitation of reason
2. One common object – truth
3. Faith and reasons relation to the will
4. Reason is present before, during, and after the exercise of faith
There is something about the human mind that causes us to instinctively know at least some degree of truth when we see or hear it. The cause for this is what some would call the innate capacity of the human mind – the laws of logic. These laws are part of our created nature; it’s how our minds are naturally wired. And though some choose not to live according to them, we cannot deny their existence. These laws, called first principles, are rooted in objective reality and are the foundational principles of all thought. Whether we produce a thought or understand another’s thought, we employ them. They are used to discover and impose order in all aspects of life, such as the order of nature with all its repeatable and observable movements, the order of ethics, and the order of thought. They are undeniable and without them, no thought can exist. They include balance:
For example, the idea that “Man is a rational being” is first identified by the mind (law of identity). But the mind innately knows that both the statement and its opposite (“Man is not a rational being”) can’t be true at the same time and in the same sense. Otherwise one could affirm that man is both a rational creature and not a rational creature at the same time and in the same sense, which is a clear violation of the law of noncontradiction; and contradictions by their very nature do not exist. Therefore, man either is or is not a rational creature; there is no middle ground (law of excluded middle). These laws apply not only to propositional truths (what we say), but also personal truths (how we live). Not only should one’s statements correspond to reality, but also one’s way of life. These are undeniable self-evident truths. Neither one of these laws can be denied without using them in the denial process. I must first identify something to deny its identity. Once I make the choice to deny it I demonstrate the law of noncontradiction since to affirm it and deny it in the same sense would be a contradiction. And whether I make the choice or not, I demonstrate the law of excluded middle, since it’s impossible to choose and not choose at the same time. All truth, whether mathematical, self-evident, tautologies, or supernatural, correspond to these laws and that’s why it’s important to know how these laws operate. Truth is narrow and exclusive; it excludes all that is not true. To affirm the truth of something is to deny its negative. For example, if two plus two is four, then it’s untrue that two plus two is not four. If it’s true that all dogs are K-9s, then it’s untrue that all dogs are not K-9s.
There are two broad categories of logic that our minds engage in: 1.) Inductive, and 2.) Deductive. Both of these operate on the foundational laws of logic as mentioned above.
Inductive – Inductive logic is an a posteriori (after the fact) approach to thinking, which means that the conclusions we reach in inductive thinking come about only after examining some cause/effect relation. It examines the effects (the particulars) in order to reach general conclusions about the cause. That’s why it’s called a posteriori reasoning because all effects come after its cause. And since the universe is filled with many effects, we have many opportunities to find truth inductively. But there are two types of cause/effect relations: 1.) where the cause/effect relation has occurred only in the past, such as the Hieroglyphics, and 2.) where the cause/effect relation occurs in the present, such as the writing of books. The former is forensic science, using the principles of causality and analogy; the latter is an empirical science, using the principles of repeatability and observability. For example, if you hypothesize that “all books are written by intelligent causes”, then there are steps to confirm your hypothesis using the empirical principles of repeatability and observability. You could experiment by observing 100 different books that are in the process of being produced. If you noted that the first 60 books resulted from an intelligent cause and the last 40 books resulted from an earthquake, then your hypothesis cannot be confirmed. However, if 70 books resulted from intelligent causes, then your hypothesis is confirmed (a 70% consistency will generally confirm a hypothesis with at least some degree of probability). If 90 books resulted from intelligent causes, your confirmed hypothesis becomes a theory. And if 100 books result from intelligent causes, then your theory becomes a law. But what about the books produced in the past whose cause is no longer observable? This is where the forensic principles come in. Let’s say we have a book from the first century. Since we cannot observe it being produced (since it’s nearly 2000 years old) we cannot use only the principles of repeatability and observability.
Another set of principles of forensic science called causality and analogy become of use. And if we have certainty that all the books of the present were caused by intelligent causes, then by analogy we can conclude that books of the past (assuming there is an essential similarity between the books) had similar causes. If the book of the first century has the same characteristics of the books of the present (such as an informative message), and the books of the present have intelligent causes, then by analogy, the book(s) of the first century must have an intelligent cause too. And since the hieroglyphics have the characteristics of encoded messages, we can know by analogy that they too were produced by an intelligent cause as well. But we don’t always have to go through the experimental method where we do 100 different experiments to confirm the cause of an effect. Sometimes we can use real numbers that are available to determine the most probable cause of an effect. When the numbers are there we can find out the odds, or the likelihood and a cause.
Deductive – Deductive logic is an a priori (before the fact) approach to thinking, which means that the conclusions we reach in deductive thinking come about before examining some cause/effect event. It examines the cause [the general idea] of something to reach particular conclusions of an effect. In fact, we can take the general conclusions of inductive reasoning and use them as a premise in a deductive setup. Another name for deductive logic is syllogistic reasoning. A syllogism is a type of reasoning in which a conclusion is reached by putting together premises. There are several types of syllogisms, such as the categorical syllogism, the hypothetical syllogism, the disjunctive syllogism, the conjunctive syllogism, and the dilemma form of syllogism. In a syllogism, if the two premises are true, then the conclusion must also be true. Here are some examples of each:
If all books are in the category of intelligent causes – and the Bible is a book – then the Bible has an intelligent cause. That is how a categorical syllogism works. If something is completely within the category of something else, then what applies to the “something else” also applies to “something” that’s within it.
Below is a diagram of the Square of Opposition, and is helpful to understand more clearly how categorical syllogisms work. There are four types of categorical propositions: A = universal affirmative, E = universal negative, I = particular affirmative, O = particular negative. If A is true, then I is also true and O is false. If O is true, then A is false. If E is true, then O is also true and I is false. Since only one contrary can be true at a time, then if A is true, then E is false (at least one contrary is false; both can’t be true). And if E is false, then I is true and O is undetermined. And if A is false, then O is true, and I and E are undetermined.
Another name for the hypothetical syllogism is the “If/then” reasoning. If the antecedent is affirmed, then the consequent is affirmed (such as example above). But if the consequent is denied, then the antecedent is denied.
This is either/or reasoning. If the “either” is affirmed, then the “or” is denied. And if the “either” is denied, then the “or” is affirmed.
This is both/and reasoning, where both premises stand or fall together. If light travels in waves, but not in particles, then the statement, “Light travels in both waves and particles” is false.
These are composed of two hypothetical statements. However, there are ways around the dilemma, such as affirming a third alternative, “If I wear sun protection, I can get vitamin D without suffering skin cancer”.
To summarize: These are the two kinds of logic: inductive and deductive. They are two different ways that our minds process information about what we observe in the universe. Sometimes we examine the parts to make conclusions about the whole; other times we examine the whole to make conclusions about the parts. They are both based on the laws of logic.
But are there any truths that go beyond reasons ability to obtain? If not, then we must assume that the universe is a closed system, whereby it receives no input of ideas from outside of it. Thus no God is needed to create or maintain the universe. But in order to know that all reality is nothing more than the material world, we must somehow transcend the material world to make the assertion, “all reality is nothing more than material world” (see Nature of Man/Soul). But if we have not transcended the material world, then neither can we make such a “nothing more than” statement. So, if this is not a closed system, then the door is open for further exploration to search for non-natural (supernatural) truths that go beyond reason’s ability to obtain – truths that can only be reached by faith.
Rationalists, such as Plato, believe that we are born with innate ideas, and that reason is the means to truth prior to any experience (a priori). For them, believing precedes sense experience; they generally reason using deductive methods, studying the cause (universal) to learn of the effect (particular).
Empiricists, such as Aristotle (also a rationalist), believe that we are born with a blank state, and that reason is the means to truth after experience (a posteriori). For them, sense experience precedes believing; they generally reason using the inductive method, studying the effect (particular) to learn of the cause (universal).
Some hold to a rigid either/or position, i.e. either rationalism or empiricism. Others like Immanuel Kant tried to synthesize the two ending up in agnosticism, the unknowability of objective truth. In fact, the human mind is fashioned with an innate capacity (natural law, or moral awareness to know right from wrong) to know truth both deductively and inductively, a priori and a posteriori. We can know truth apart from sense experience, such as through introspect, rational discourse about our hopes, fears, beliefs, etc. And we can know truth through sense experience, such as through the scientific method (repeating and observation of an experiment), which is foundational to most sciences. Though other self-evident first principles, such as the law of causality, which says that every event has a cause, and law of analogy, which states that every effect shares similarity with its cause, we can know both subjective and objective truths. Man is a finite effect that shares being with his Infinite Cause (since there’s no such thing as an infinite regress). Therefore, natural law, having its basis in eternal law, gives some degree of knowledge of the eternal Being through the logic of temporal beings – where human logic encounters Divine Logic.
Therefore, we can have both rational and empirical knowledge of truth, both prior to, and from experience. Since they are not totally mutually exclusive, we can be both/and, not either/or. However, not all truth can be known only through mere rationalism and empiricism. There are some truths that go beyond human reason to grasp.
NATURAL LAW ROOTED IN ETERNAL LAW
The innate capacity of ours must have its foundation in something either temporary or eternal. Something must have existed from eternity past to give rise to the order – such as that exists in our minds – that abounds today. If absolutely nothing existed from eternity past, then there would be absolutely nothing in existence today since nothing can’t produce anything; nothing can only produce nothing. Therefore, the order we have today is rooted in something eternal. But this eternal something must also be something with some kind of law within its nature, for it’s impossible for an effect – the human mind – to be greater than its cause; if the effect has some kind of law, then the cause must have it too. The universe abounds with law and so it could be the eternal “something” in which natural law is rooted. But as far as science has demonstrated, the universe is not eternal (see The Universe/Its Origins). Therefore, natural law must be rooted in something that transcends the universe. Thus natural law is rooted in that which goes beyond the natural, to something supernatural.
There are two extremes between the exercise of faith and reason. On one end, fideism is where faith is so emphasized that reason becomes neglected. And on the other end is the rationalist where reason can be so emphasized that faith becomes neglected. These two extremes are seen throughout history. In the first century, Pharisees (Jewish purist) developed Midrash. Midrash was a form of spiritualized communication that set aside logical inferences. Meaning was embedded within the communication process and often had nothing to do with the literal face value of the words being spoken. Between the fourth and sixteenth centuries, another form of spiritualized communication developed called Quadriga, which looked for four specific meanings in communication. These had major influences until the Renaissance. With the Renaissance and the Enlightenment (14th-17th century), a shift began to take place. Reason now began to take priority over the things of faith. All truth was sought purely through reason. Scientific investigation was given authority to determine truth. And all the particulars of reality became autonomous, with no universal to unify it with meaning. Good and evil became relative terms. And life in general, with no objective universal to infuse it with meaning, became meaningless. This thought eventually gave way to cultural relativism of the 20th century, which gave the culture the final authority to determine truth. Today in the 21st century the dominant thought is postmodernism, which believes that no universal truth exists and all truth is relative. However, in the middle of these two extremes of the fideist and the rationalist, were the Reformers of the 16th century. The Reformers brought a balance between the two extremes by unifying all reality (particulars) under the headship of one divine Being (universal) that gave real meaning to all life. They believe all life is meaningful because it was created by an all-powerful God that endowed all life with meaning.
The human mind is insufficient on its own to receive divine truth. The greatest philosophers were able to get only so far. The reason for this separating gulf is not because of the nature of divine truth, which never changes, but of the nature of man, which has been radically altered because of evil (see Evil/Physical). However, it has not completely taken away our ability to find truth, otherwise, any statement anyone makes would be false, and the opposite of every false proposition would be true. We are clearly able to perceive natural truths of nature, even if we’re not willing to receive divine truths of grace.
Truth is all around us. There is some truth that can be reached by reason alone since the laws of logic assume some undeniable truths. On the other hand, there are some truths that go beyond human reason alone. The former has no faith value since its object can be seen, but the latter does have faith value, since it requires an act of the will towards those things that cannot be seen. The object of true faith may go beyond reason, but it is not contrary to it.
For the mind to reach these divine truths there must be some persuasion of the will so that the will transcends natural truth. Human reason can persuade the will, but never into real faith. The attempts to do so actually lessen the value of genuine faith, since the substance of true faith is unseen. Human reason is not the efficient cause of faith, but it can support it. What causes faith is a movement of the will as it is being lifted beyond human reason by the persuasion of divine love.
However, it does no good to leap into something without some kind of reasonable evidence that it will hold you up. Therefore, it is the duty of reason to investigate the substance of true faith before, during, and after the leap. For something must be thought worthy of belief before the act of faith takes place. Once it’s found worthy by way of reason, the will then makes the transition into divine truths. But even at this point, once faith takes flight, reason is not detached from faith. It is not a blind leap into the unknown. Nor is it a leap from reason into faith. Instead, reason accompanies faith in the whole process from beginning to end and continues its investigation of the reasonable evidences.